Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The legal status of lottery schemes in Canada : changing the rules of the game Osborne, Judith Anne 1989

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1989_A6_4 O74.pdf [ 11.61MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0077702.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0077702-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0077702-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0077702-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0077702-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0077702-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0077702-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0077702-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0077702.ris

Full Text

THE  LEGAL STATUS OF LOTTERY SCHEMES IN CANADA: CHANGING THE RULES OF THE GAME By JUDITH ANNE OSBORNE LL.B., The U n i v e r s i t y o f Edinburgh, 1977 M.A., The U n i v e r s i t y o f Toronto, 1978  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF LAWS  in THE  FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES ( F a c u l t y o f Law)  We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the required  Professor  Professor  standard  M i c h a e l A. Jackson  Dennis J . P a v l i c h  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 1989 (c) J u d i t h A. Osborne, 1989  In presenting  this thesis in partial fulfilment of t h e requirements f o r an advanced  degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that t h e Library shall make it freely available f o r reference copying  a n d study. I further agree that permission  f o r extensive  of this thesis f o r scholarly purposes may b e granted b y the head o f m y  department  o r b y his o r her representatives.  It is u n d e r s t o o d  that  copying o r  publication of this thesis f o r financial gain shall n o t b e allowed without my written permission.  Department of Q ^ p ^ < ^ Ql(=3 The University of British C o l u m b i a Vancouver, C a n a d a Date  3gT)ftf/33-  DE-6 (2/88)  jL^&JA  A B S T R A C T The  term " l o t t e r y scheme" i s a g e n e r i c  one  used i n  the  C r i m i n a l C o d e o f C a n a d a t o encompass both t r u e l o t t e r i e s other  games  of  chance.  Until  prohibited  such gambling  very small  scale, occasional  for  charitable  agricultural longstanding  activities,  purposes, fairs.  one  1969,  and  and  This  amended  to  w i t h the  exception  lottery  schemes  criminal  which had  permit  C r i m i n a l  C o d e of  p r i v a t e l o t t e r y schemes run  existed  C o n f e d e r a t i o n . Twenty y e a r s ago, was  the  operated  prohibition  i n Canada  since  however, the  state-operated  and  was  at a  before  C r i m i n a l C o d e state-licensed  l o t t e r y schemes. As law,  a  consequence  legalized  flourished society. trend;  of  this  gambling  has,  and In  become  part,  this  relaxation  firmly  the  Australia  development debate,  and  established  reflects  occurred  political  Europe. in  the  a  legal validity, This  In  Canada,  rationalization  of  or  or what i t s i m p l i c a t i o n s  schemes was  of  transformed  how  the  in  1969,  legal why  Canadian  i n the  United  however,  widespread  this public  analysis.  i t came about, i t s are.  t h e s i s addresses these n e g l e c t e d  understanding  1970s,  international  academic  or why  criminal  in  general  absence  There i s not much known about how  the early  s i m i l a r developments have taken p l a c e  States,  some  since  of  issues,  status  of  i t occurred  its consequences have been. These aims are  achieved  provides lottery and  what  through  and  iii  an  examination  of  five  distinct  but  dimensions: l e g a l h i s t o r y , p o l i t i c a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l law This in  the  rules  the  regarding  quickly,  way  responsible  conduct  public  This  f o r the  provinces,  which  and  a fairly  lottery  of  fuss  took  r a d i c a l change was and  It  debate  is  advantage  manage l o t t e r y schemes, but  very a  silent partly  part  their did  little  least  the  of  achieved  was at  i n c o h e r e n t response on  soon  l e g a l theory,  schemes  discussion.  lack  research  law.  w i t h a minimum o f  of  transformation.  process,  administrative  study f i n d s t h a t what was  relatively in  and  related  o f some  ability  to  appear  to  not  have an a r t i c u l a t e gaming c o n t r o l p o l i c y . It  is  shown  that  while  there  sound  sanctions  from  certain  political,  s o c i a l and  economic reasons which were e q u a l l y i f  not  important  in  justifications  even  for  the  well-established,  philosophically  more  reasons  were  gambling  games,  explaining  overrode  removal  the  its  lottery  schemes  was  achieved  i n t e r d e l e g a t i o n of powers between the l e g i s l a t u r e s . Not unsound, but  only  i t also  focus  of  conduct and a  criminal  were  occurrence.  also  These  constraints  of  decriminalization through  a  f e d e r a l and  of  dubious provincial  i s t h i s arrangement c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y ignored the  segment o f Canada's p o p u l a t i o n : r i g h t to  there  legal  Canada's c o n s t i t u t i o n a l framework: the  of  control  tri-partite  i n t e r e s t s of  an  important  i t s a b o r i g i n a l peoples.  gaming on  jurisdictional  I n d i a n lands i s struggle  which  The the will  likely  soon f o r c e  a re-examination  l o t t e r y schemes i n Canada.  of the l e g a l  status  V T A B L E O F CONTENTS Abstract  i i  INTRODUCTION  1  C H A P T E R O N E : A H I S T O R Y OF GAMING LAW I N CANADA  6  The New World Gambling and t h e Law i n England The L e g a l S t a t u s o f Gambling i n P r e - C o n f e d e r a t i o n Canada Cofederation to C o d i f i c a t i o n The C r i m i n a l Code o f Canada T i n k e r i n g With t h e Law R e v i s i o n and R e c o n s i d e r a t i o n CHAPTER  6 10 21 26 32 37 47  TWO: T H E P R O C E S S O F D E C R I M I N A L I Z A T I O N  53  P r e l iminary Manoevres Government Proposals The F e d e r a l - P r o v i n c i a l S t r u g g l e over L o t t e r i e s CHAPTER  THREE:  THE CONTRACTION  OF T H E C R I M I N A L  53 58 64 LAW  A Unique Enactment The L e g a l Enforcement o f M o r a l i t y V i c t i m l e s s Crime: t h e L i m i t s o f the C r i m i n a l S a n c t i o n Making and Unmaking C r i m i n a l Law CHAPTER  FOUR:  LOTTERY  SCHEMES  AND THE C O N S T I T U T I O N  J u r i s d i c t i o n over Gambling The I n t e r d e l e g a t i o n o f Power R e f e r e n t i a l and C o n d i t i o n a l L e g i s l a t i o n CHAPTER  FIVE:  INDIAN  GAMING  S I X : P R O V I N C I A L GAMING C O N T R O L : B R I T I S H COLUMBIA  90 96 102  102 112 122 132  An I n t r o d u c t i o n t o Indians and the I n d i a n A c t I n d i a n Gaming i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s I n d i a n Gaming Before t h e Courts The Canadian Context: The S i g n i f i c a n c e o f Gaming on Reserves Provincial Jurisdiction Indian J u r i s d i c t i o n CHAPTER  76  76 79  134 140 148 160 168 180  THE EXAMPLE OF  P r o v i n c i a l Gaming C o n t r o l Models o f D e c r i m i n a l i z a t i o n A Regulatory H i s t o r y o f Gaming C o n t r o l i n B r i t i s h Columbia S t a t u t o r y A u t h o r i t y t o Regulate Gaming L i c e n s i n g Without Law Remedies  190  190 194 199 207 216 223  vx CONCLUSIONS  239  BIBLIOGRAPHY  243  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am g r a t e f u l t o Simon F r a s e r  University f o r granting  me a s a b b a t i c a l l e a v e which enabled me t o pursue my s t u d i e s . I would a l s o l i k e t o thank my f r i e n d s and c o l l e a g u e s School  o f Criminology  encouragement, support I  would  agreeing  a t Simon F r a s e r  University f o r their  and use o f t h e l a s e r p r i n t e r .  especially like  t o be my  i n the  senior  t o thank M i c h a e l  supervisor,  despite  Jackson f o r h i s daunting  workload. Above  a l l , I would  like  t o thank  Colin  p i q u i n g my i n t e r e s t i n t h e t o p i c and f o r being  Campbell f o r there.  TO COLIN  1  INTRODUCTION This partial The  year  marks  the  twentieth  decriminalization(1)  term  Criminal  "lottery  scheme"  Code o f Canada(2)  of l o t t e r y is a  games o f chance which,  known  as  Code,  in  conjunction  generic  in this  Section  with  s.  one,  the  207(4)  used  i n the  lotteries  thesis,  206(1),  of  schemes i n Canada.  t o encompass t r u e  other  quasi-lotteries.  anniversary  will  of  the  defines  and  also  be  Criminal "lottery  scheme" as  "a game o r any p r o p o s a l ,  contrivance  o r o p e r a t i o n " which i n v o l v e s e i t h e r d i s p o s i n g o f  any p r o p e r t y by l o t s , cards, t i c k e t s ,  scheme, p l a n ,  device,  "or any mode o f chance  whatever"; d i s p o s i n g of any goods by a game o f chance o r a game o f mixed chance and s k i l l  i n which the c o n t e s t a n t  pays  money o r o t h e r v a l u a b l e c o n s i d e r a t i o n ; o r i n d u c i n g anyone t o stake  money o r other  valuable  consideration  "on the  result  of any d i c e game, t h r e e - c a r d monte, punch board, c o i n t a b l e or  on  the  operation  of  a  wheel  i t s name,  a  of legal  fortune".  therefore,  despite  construct  encompasses  much more than the t r u e l o t t e r y scheme.  It i s , which  1 In t h i s t h e s i s , " d e c r i m i n a l i z a t i o n " w i l l r e f e r t o t h e r e p e a l o f laws t h a t make c e r t a i n forms o f gambling i l l e g a l . The term " l e g a l i z a t i o n " w i l l r e f e r t o s t a t e - o p e r a t e d o r s t a t e - s a n c t i o n e d gambling a c t i v i t i e s . T h i s terminology i s adapted from the usage i n the r e p o r t o f the Twentieth Century Fund, Easy Money: Report o f the Task Force on L e g a l i z e d Gambling (New York: T.C.F., 1974). 2 R.S.C. 1985, c.  C-46.  2  Before the in  1969,(3)  enactment o f the  C r i m i n a l L a w A m e n d m e n t A c  C r i m i n a l  such  the  activities,  with  with  prize  limit),  for  charitable  a  $50  schemes  run  operated  at  longstanding  the  exception  agricultural one  Confederation.  C o d e prohibited of  small  scale  and  private  lottery  purposes  and  lottery  schemes  This  existed  Nonetheless,  prohibition  i n Canada  twenty  years  was  since  ago,  schemes.  permitted  the  schemes,  but  authorize  This  amendment  Government i t also  of  the  Parliament  province,"  to  province.(4) divested  the  lottery  by  the  conduct More  conduct to  conduct  manage a late  "under the a u t h o r i t y  f e d e r a l government o f • The  l o t t e r y scheme i n in any  1985,  now  of  of a  that  Parliament  capacity  provinces  or  for a  L i e u t e n a n t Governor i n C o u n c i l and  C o d e  lottery  example, i t became l a w f u l  recently,  schemes.(5)  to  form of  C r i m i n a l  provinces  c h a r i t a b l e or r e l i g i o u s o r g a n i z a t i o n a l i c e n c e issued  the  Canada  allowed  such schemes. For  to  a  before  changed the r u l e s t o a l l o w l e g a l i z e d gambling i n the lottery  (i.e.  occasional  fairs.  which had  very  gambling  to  conduct  have  sole  jurisdiction. As law, 3 S.C.  a  consequence  legalized  of  this  gambling  has,  1968-69, C.38,  relaxation since  the  of  the  criminal  early  1970s,  S.13.  4 C r i m i n a l C o d e o f C a n a d a , R.S.C. 1970, s . 1 9 0 ( 1 ) ( c ) .  c.  C-34,  5 T h e C r i m i n a l C o d e ( L o t t e r i e s ) A m e n d m e n t A c t 52 .  C.  3  flourished  and  become  firmly  established  s o c i e t y . R i g h t a c r o s s the country, money on store;  lottery  in  blackjack this  tickets  western and  Canada,  roulette  reflects  a have  Australia  Europe.  took  place  in  are  taken  the  c l o s e as  almost  as  the  for  place  in  local  corner  playing  bingo,  convenient.  international the  of  widespread  In  part,  trend.  Similar  United  States,  In Canada, however, t h i s  absence  Canadian  the o p p o r t u n i t y t o wager  facilities  general  developments and  i s as  in  development  public  debate,  p o l i t i c a l r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n or academic a n a l y s i s . There i s not much  known  validity,  or  surprising subject for  about  how  what  given  matter:  subverting  or  why  it  came  about,  i t s i m p l i c a t i o n s are. the  morally  gambling the  has  This  its  i s somewhat  controversial  nature  traditionally  been  Protestant  ethic  that  legal  of  the  condemned  life's  rewards  should r e s u l t from hard work and m e r i t , not mere chance. The  purpose  of  this  thesis,  therefore, i s to  address  these n e g l e c t e d i s s u e s ; t o p r o v i d e some understanding  of  how  the l e g a l  why  it  s t a t u s of l o t t e r y schemes was  o c c u r r e d , and the  opening  transformed,  what i t s consequences have been. A c c o r d i n g l y , chapter  surveys  the  roots  of  Canada's  gaming  laws i n E n g l i s h s t a t u t o r y enactments, t h e i r t r a n s p l a n t a t i o n to the  the one  North  American  hundred years  c o l o n i e s and  their  evolution during  following Confederation.  Chapter  Two  examines the p o l i t i c a l process which produced the amendments to  the  C r i m i n a l Code and  the  l a c k of  p u b l i c debate  which  4  attended  them.  contextual  These  sections,  third  chapter, which reviews the  o f the  p h i l o s o p h y and  of  nature  and  sociology  scope of  Having examined how changed,  the  analysis  of  Chapter  Four  scheme t h a t  second their  games of  been  the  in  implications  f o r the  Criminal of  impact  the  of  peoples who, as  Code.  the  structures  Canadian  will  the  which  are  of  be  as  the  it  has  ambiguous  shown  to  is  and have  provision  chapter,  of  an  lotteries  l o t t e r y scheme  powers  of  conditional  succeeding  the  the  another  addressed: Canada's  These  administrative  and  their  revenue.  provincially-based  . implicit  scheme. of  validity  rather  issue  to  consequences.  playing  independent, source o f to  society  legal  is  game were  devoted  constitution,  of the  on  the  the  native  y e a r s , have begun t o l o o k t o gambling  i s directed  expansion  is  delegated,  constitutional  i n recent  decriminalization further  thesis  which  In  amendment  a much needed,  attention  the  of  status  provides  r u l e s of the  courts,  categories  legislation,  dimension  the  Canadian  the  lottery  understanding  law,  constitutional  chance. The  referential  the  why  significant  the  a  contributions  t o our  criminal  adopted t o permit the  interpreted  regarding  of  provide  process.  of  most  assesses  was  and  part  o f law  the  t h e o r e t i c a l dimensions of the  and  combined,  understanding of the d e c r i m i n a l i z a t i o n of  schemes. The  the  two  in  action  conformity  regulatory  the  structures  Finally,  federal  represent  in  a  contemporary  with  accepted  5  principles final  of  three  administrative  chapters  l e g a l transformation  law  discuss  i s assessed.  terms  of  prior  i t s broader  impact,  consideration.  It  i n i t s own which  has  Undeniably, has  the  the  than  legal  two  status  of t h i s e x e r c i s e i s right  received  produced  c o n t r o v e r s i e s which remain t o be more  the  o f l o t t e r y schemes.(6)  change s i g n i f i c a n t  legislation,  sum  the major consequences of  The p i c t u r e t h a t emerges a t the end of a l e g a l  In  of  lottery  also in  virtually  questions  r e s o l v e d , by decades  and  after  and  litigation the  schemes  in  no  or  event. Canada  been transformed. T h i s change of the r u l e s i s , however,  legally  problematic.  6 In t h i s second h a l f of the t h e s i s , where r e f e r e n c e i s made t o the p r o v i n c i a l context, primary r e f e r e n c e w i l l be t o the s i t u a t i o n which p r e v a i l s i n B r i t i s h Columbia.  6  CHAPTER ONE A HISTORY OF GAMING LAW IN CANADA(1)  The New World Gambling settlers;  laws  Recounting Indians noted  was  not  to  prohibit  his first  while  brought  the existence  and  meetings  anchored  to  Canada  control  with  used  European  gambling  t h e North  at Sainte-Croix,  o f premises  by  were.  American  Jacques  Cartier  f o r the playing of  games o f chance, "where they gamble away a l l t h a t they have, even  the  dignitary, commented  coverings visiting on  the  of  their  the colony gambling  nakedness. o f New  proclivities  11  (2)  A  France of  French  i n 1606,  the  Micmac  Indians:(3) I would add here, as t o t h e p r a c t i c e o f games o f chance by our Savages, t h a t they a r e so fond o f i t t h a t they sometimes gamble a l l t h a t they possess, even t h e i r wives .... I n a d i s h they put a number o f beans c o l o u r e d and p a i n t e d on one s i d e , and h a v i n g s t r e t c h e d 1 The g e n e r a l terms "gambling" and "gaming" a r e o f t e n used as synonyms, as they a r e i n t h i s t h e s i s . S t r i c t l y speaking, however, n o t a l l gaming i n v o l v e s gambling, i . e . a game i n v o l v i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n , r i s k and a p r i z e . T r a d i t i o n a l l y , the l e g a l l y c o r r e c t term i s "gaming", although gaming laws a c t u a l l y t a r g e t gambling. F o r f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n o f gambling semantics see Campbell, "Gambling i n Canada" i n Jackson and G r i f f i t h s , C r i m i n o l o g y i n Canada (Harcburt Brace J o v a n o v i c h , forthcoming). 2 P o u l i o t , La Grande Aventure de Jacques C a r t i e r 1934) p.65.  (Quebec,  3 L e s c a r b o t , H i s t o r y o f New France (Toronto: The Champlain S o c i e t y , 1911) p.389.  7 out a s k i n on the e a r t h , they p l a y on i t , s l a p p i n g the s k i n w i t h t h e i r d i s h , and by t h i s means the beans jump i n the a i r , and not a l l o f them f a l l down on the c o l o u r e d s i d e , and h e r e i n l i e s the p a r t o f chance. And a c c o r d i n g t o the g a t h e r i n g , they use a c e r t a i n number of r e e d stems which they g i v e t o the winner t o keep the score. That  gambling  tribes  was  widespread  i s confirmed  documented the  by  importance  Huron Indians.(4) To what  became  settlement  New by  gamblers".(5)  the  the  Even  were  colonial i n the  that  aboriginal  Initially, New  France  history  were  of  the  and  control  of  other  from  the  edict  issued  at  as  Sagard  who  the  time  of  "advanced  reaches  ethnological have  peoples of  being  western  inhabitants  Indian  i n the customs o f the  governor  data  of  the  confirm  participated  in  immemorial.(6)  the c o l o n i z e d Canadian t e r r i t o r i e s known as subject lottery  to  French  in  what  Quebec, Labrosse d e s c r i b e s two the  Father  described  isolated  anthropological  gambling games s i n c e time  of  different  south, the a b o r i g i n a l  continent, the  the  memoirs  o f gaming  England  the  among  gambling, local  i n 1611  one  colonial by  law.  i s now  In  h i s extensive  the  e a r l y enactments emanating authority.  Louis XIII,  from The  province  of  relating  to  France, former,  authorized  raids  the an on  4 Sagard, Le Grand Voyage au Pays des Hurons (Montreal: Les Amis de l ' H i s t o i r e , 1969) p.27. 5 Winslow, E. "Good News from New England" (London, 1624) c i t e d by Ashton, J . The H i s t o r y o f Gambling i n England (New York: Burt F r a n k l i n , 1968. O r i g i n a l l y p u b l i s h e d , London: 1899) p.2. 6 e.g. Maranda, Coast S a l i s h Gambling Games (Ottawa: N a t i o n a l Museums o f Canada, 1984) .  8  gambling  houses,  ordering  that  "any  person  keeping  gambling den where cards o r d i c e a r e p l a y e d i n h i s house be  held  responsible  "judges may other  the  players'  losses".  to  exposed the  for  poor  in first  play the  enactment, one  o f the  C o u n c i l o f New  France i n 1648,  ...  and  nor  no  any  Further,  distribute  h o s p i t a l s " . (7)  The  of  chance  by  the  a u t h o r i z e d the opening o f a  s c a n d a l o r drunkenness, games  the  latter  r e g u l a t i o n s promulgated  t a v e r n i n Quebec C i t y but d i r e c t e d the owner t h a t suffer  may  go t h e r e t o s e i z e the money, r i n g s and j e w e l s o r  things  proceeds  for  a  in his  o r blasphemy house". (8)  "he or  shall  cursing  Despite  such  p r o h i b i t i o n s , the e a r l y s e t t l e r s c o n t i n u e d t o i n d u l g e i n the gambling  pastimes  they had  brought  w i t h them  from  Europe.  A c c o r d i n g t o the r e s e a r c h e s o f one commentator, l o t t e r i e s i n particular colonial  were  often  authorities,  projects  and  used,  f o r poor  gaming  with  permission  relief  flourished  and "at  from  to finance all  the large  levels  of  society".(9) With the T r e a t y o f P a r i s , 1763, Canadian  territories  irrelevant. existing  The  French  to  Royal law  Britain,  Proclamation  with  which ceded the Franco-  English  French of  law  17 63  law  became  replaced  i n both  civil  7 Labrosse, The L o t t e r y : from Jacques C a r t i e r ' s day t o modern times (Montreal: Stanke, 1985) p.33. 8 I b i d a t 34. 9 Labrosse, supra f n . 7 a t 36,  45.  the and  9  criminal  matters.  Although  French  civil  law  was  to  be  r e s t o r e d i n Quebec by the Q u e b e c A c t , 1 7 7 4 , the c r i m i n a l was  not.  Upper  A f t e r the  Canada  colonies  in  government,(10)  1791  the  were separated  and  given  legislature  powers  of  Upper  Ontario) chose t o i n t r o d u c e  English c i v i l  1792  date  and  to  advance  the  i n t o Lower  of  of  as o f  reception  of  c r i m i n a l law t o September 1792.(11) T h e r e a f t e r , legislatures as  such  which  could  enactments were  by  express  a p p l i c a b l e t o the In the regarded rather have  to  have  than  by  i n s o f a r as  or  necessary  been  acquired  with  them  the  the  by  century. in  1832.  English  the c o l o n i a l  except an  was  settlers  continued  this  was  to  were  e x i s t i n g body  suitable for local  by  law made  the  considered  of  English  conditions.  u n t i l the colony  be  settlement  was  half  dates  of  reception  f o r western  of  and  law  granted a  Brunswick and  latter  to  Reception  In Newfoundland a l e g i s l a t i v e assembly was The  insofar  Imperial  intendment  Britain  l o c a l l e g i s l a t u r e . For Nova S c o t i a , New Island  October  Canadian c o l o n i e s , which were g e n e r a l l y  E n g l i s h law  Edward  (now  colonies.(12)  conquest,  i t was  c r i m i n a l law  inconsistent with  words  eastern  brought  o f new  augment the  and  local  Canada  law  Prince  the  18th  granted northern  10 T h e C o n s t i t u t i o n a l A c t , 1 7 9 1 , 31 G e o . I l l , 11,40  law  c.31.  G e o . I l l , c . l , s . l (U.C.) (1800) .  12 T h e C o l o n i a l L a w s V a l i d i t y A c t , 1 8 6 5 28 & (Imp.) c l a r i f i e d the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of I m p e r i a l and C o l o n i a l enactments i n i n s t a n c e s of c o n f l i c t .  10  Canada were n a t u r a l l y l a t e r : 1870  for  the  prairie  1858 f o r B r i t i s h provinces  and  Columbia and  the  northern  territories.(13) Thus,  English  criminal  law  was  to  provide  the  f o u n d a t i o n s f o r t h e development o f a Canadian c r i m i n a l law. Accordingly,  i t i s to a brief  examination  of the English  c r i m i n a l law p e r t a i n i n g t o gambling and l o t t e r i e s t h a t  this  c h a p t e r now t u r n s .  Gambling and t h e Law i n England English the  term  law i s , o f course,  "common  virtually  synonymous  law" i . e . law which  consists  with  of the  accumulated wisdom o f c e n t u r i e s o f j u d i c i a l d e c i s i o n s  rather  than  Colvin  being  created  notes, E n g l i s h was  largely  judicial  by  legislative  enactment.  As  c r i m i n a l law i n t h e 18th and 19th c e n t u r i e s  a matter  o f common  precedents.(14)  The  law, c o n s t r u c t e d  criminal  law  through  relating  to  l o t t e r i e s and gambling, as w e l l as t o b e t t i n g and wagering, that  i s , gaming  i n general,  i s , however,  areas having a l a r g e l y s t a t u t o r y  one o f t h e few  genesis.  13 F o r a more d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e r e c e p t i o n o f E n g l i s h law i n Canada see Cote, "The R e c e p t i o n o f E n g l i s h Law", (1977) 15 A l b e r t a Law Review 29. 14 C o l v i n , P r i n c i p l e s o f C r i m i n a l Law (Toronto: 1986) p.3.  Carswell,  11  Indeed, i t i s a w i d e l y c i r c u l a t e d axiom t h a t , a t common law,  a l l  games  cockfighting.(15) simplicity that,  Like  were most  lawful legal  except,  perhaps,  aphorisms, however, i t s  i s d e c e p t i v e . I t i s perhaps more a c c u r a t e t o say  a t common law, t h e mere p l a y i n g  o f games was l a w f u l ,  but gaming which r a n t h e r i s k o f a breach o f t h e peace, o r o t h e r p u b l i c nuisance was u n l a w f u l . I n o t h e r words, although gaming  p e r se was not viewed as u n l a w f u l ,  consequences o f t e n were.(16) A c c o r d i n g l y , gaming  house  was an o f f e n c e  a t common  i t s collateral  keeping  a common  law,(17) and Bacon  s t a t e s t h a t e x c e s s i v e gaming was a l s o unlawful:(18) I t seems t h a t by t h e common law t h e p l a y i n g o f c a r d s , dice e t c . , when p r a c t i s e d innocently and as a r e c r e a t i o n , t h e b e t t e r t o f i t a person f o r b u s i n e s s , i s not a t a l l u n l a w f u l nor p u n i s h a b l e as any o f f e n c e whatsoever .... from t h e d e s t r u c t i v e consequences o f e x c e s s i v e gaming, both t h e Courts o f law and e q u i t y have shown an abhorrence o f i t . 15 e.g. H a l s b u r y ' s Laws o f England 4 t h ed.(London: Butterworths, 1973) Volume 4: B e t t i n g Gaming and L o t t e r i e s , p a r a . 7; Fagan, "The Enforcement o f Gaming Debts i n B r i t a i n " , (1986) New York J o u r n a l o f I n t e r n a t i o n a l and Comparative Law 7. 16 U.S Department o f J u s t i c e . L.E.A.A. The Development o f the Law o f Gambling 1776-1976 (Washington D . C : U.S. P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1977) p.4. 17 B l a c k s t o n e , Commentaries on t h e Laws o f England ( P h i l a d e l p h i a : Rees Welsh, 1899) Book IV, p.1572. B l a c k s t o n e c l a s s i f i e s keeping a common gaming house as a p u b l i c nuisance, an o f f e n c e a g a i n s t "the p u b l i c h e a l t h and t h e p u b l i c p o l i c e o r oeconomy". 18 Bacon, Abridgement 7 t h ed. (London: Strahan, 1832) V o l . IV, p. 17. In The Case o f t h e Monopolies (1603) 11 Co.Rep. 84; 77 Eng. Rep. 1260, t h e Court, i n an o b i t e r comment remarked t h a t "immoderate p l a y " was c o n t r a r y t o t h e common law.  12  In  his treatise  of  the  law  of  gaming, (19)  devotes much o f h i s e f f o r t s t o c h a l l e n g i n g  the  Street  persuasive  s i m p l i c i t y o f t h e n o t i o n t h a t , a t common law, a l l games were lawful,  which  has  decisions.(20)  been  F o r example,  statute  directed  provided  that labourers  arrows and " l e a v e stone games  Accordingly,  he  towards  tennis,  thus  notes  gaming,  football, such  known  Street  in  some  that  the  passed  in  judicial earliest 1388,(21)  and s e r v i n g men s h a l l have bows and  k a i l e s , and other was  adopted  as  coits,  dice, casting of  importune games". A c l a s s o f "importune"  concludes,  at  their  this  date.  character  determined by t h e i r harmfulness t o t h e s t a t e and t h a t s t a t u t e was d e c l a r a t o r y  and not i n d e r o g a t i o n  was this  o f t h e common  law.(22) T h i s p o s i t i o n supports t h e argument made elsewhere t h a t , u n t i l t h e e a r l y 1700s, i t was g e n e r a l l y accepted Parliament  could  not modify  common law and t h a t  early English  it,  rather  than  overruling  the  status  o f gaming  ultimately of l i t t l e  the basic  it.(23)  that  p r i n c i p l e s of the  statutes Although  simply  embodied  this  issue of  a t common law i s f a s c i n a t i n g , i t relevance  is  f o r t h e law o f gaming. Even  19 The Law o f Gaming (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1937). 20 e.g. Jenks v . T u r p i n Hawkins J .  (1884) 13 Q.B.D. 505 a t 516, 523 p e r  21 12 R i c h . I I , c.6. 22 S t r e e t , supra f n . 19 a t 5. 23 U.S. Department o f J u s t i c e , supra f n . 16 a t 3-4.  13  Street himself creature of  agrees t h a t  in  necessity  law  of  gaming  i s largely a  s t a t u t e was,  as was  noted above,  statute.(24)  Although the passed  the  earliest  1388, as  and  arose  from  gaming a p p a r e n t l y  a  perceived  military  i n t e r f e r e d w i t h the  pursuit  o f the m a r t i a l a r t s , t h e r e were e a r l i e r , o r d i n a n c e s d i r e c t e d towards gaming. In h i s H i s t o r y of Gambling i n England Ashton points  out  that  an  promulgated  in  Christian  army  the  regulation  of  Richard  I  and  Philip  prohibited  any  person  knight, and  the  e d i c t was  of  France  i n the  from p l a y i n g a t any  clergymen c o u l d  play  p l e a s e d . (25) succeed  during  army,  the  beneath  for  the  command  of  Crusade.  It  the  degree  of  s o r t of game f o r money. K n i g h t s  f o r money, but  t o l o s e more than 20 s h i l l i n g s monarchs had  under  1190  were not  permitted  i n a 24 hour p e r i o d . The  two  the p r i v i l e g e of p l a y i n g f o r whatever sums they Like  i t , this  much  of  military  the  legislation  decree  which  attempted  to  was  to  proscribe  gambling among the lower orders.(26) Reviewing  the  legislation  of  the  Tudor  and  Stuart  monarchs, Holdsworth comments t h a t the medieval ideas the need f o r separate r u l e s f o r the d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l 24 S t r e e t , supra fn.19  as  to  classes  at (v).  25 Ashton, supra f n . 5 a t  13.  26 e.g. 12 R i c h . I I , c.6 (1388) was d i r e c t e d a t " l a b o u r e r s and s e r v i n g men" and 17 Edw.IV, c.3 (1477) f o r b i d d i n g common gaming houses was d i r e c t e d a t the v e t e r a n s of the newly disbanded army.  14  were  still  still  r e g u l a t e d w i t h some minuteness "and games and pastimes  which  recognized  and e n f o r c e d .  u n p r o f i t a b l y occupied  Food  t h e time  and d r e s s  needed  were  for military  t r a i n i n g , were p r o h i b i t e d " . ( 2 7 ) A key example o f t h i s An  Acte  unlawful  f o r Maytenence Games.(28)  i s Henry V I I I ' s s t a t u t e o f 1541,  of Artyllarie  A l l previous  and debarringe  gambling  enactments  of were  amalgamated i n t h i s A c t which enacted t h a t : no manner o f a r t i f i c e r , o r craftsman o f any h a n d i c r a f t or occupation, husbandman, apprentice, labourer, servant a t husbandry, journeyman, or servant a t artificer, mariners, fishermen, watermen, o r any s e r v i n g man, s h a l l from t h e s a i d f e a s t o f t h e N a t i v i t y o f S t . John t h e B a p t i s t , p l a y a t t h e t a b l e s , t e n n i s , d i c e , c a r d s , bowls, c l a s h , c o y t i n g , l o g a t i n g , o r any u n l a w f u l game, out o f Christmas.... It  a l s o made  dicing,  i t unlawful  carding  t o maintain  o r other  gambling.  might not have been i l l e g a l it  were p l a y e d  This  confirmed  f o r money an  a house  Thus,  or place of  although  p e r se, illegality  distinction  game  attached i f  i n p u b l i c o r i n a gaming  important  a  between  house. public  gaming and gaming i n p r i v a t e . T h i s l e g i s l a t i o n was t o remain one  of the central  until  enactments  f o r the control  o f gaming  1845 when i t was r e p e a l e d and p a r t i a l l y re-enacted by  the Gaming A c t . ( 2 9 ) In t h e i n t e r v e n i n g y e a r s , t h e e f f o r t s o f Parliament  were  directed  a t p r o s c r i b i n g new  games  which  27 Holdsworth, A H i s t o r y o f E n g l i s h Law (3d ed.) (London: Methuen, 1966. F i r s t p u b l i s h e d , 1924) Vol.4, Book IV p.304. 28 33 Hen.VIII, c.9  (1541).  29 8 & 9 V i c t . , C.74.  15  appeared  with  regularity,(30)  at  the  effects  of  gambling  among the upper c l a s s e s , and a t l o t t e r i e s . After popular and  the  R e s t o r a t i o n , gambling  among the  legal  history  aristocracy.  In h i s study  of gaming from 1660  t h a t although i t was  became  increasingly o f the  t o 1845,  social  Miers  notes  e f f e c t i v e l y suppressed by Cromwell,  the  R e s t o r a t i o n brought w i t h i t the phenomenon of deep gaming', x  that for  i s , "continuous gaming over prolonged p e r i o d s o f high  This  stakes, u s u a l l y  development  essentially transfers bonds,  a  of  had  cash  serious  land-based wealth,  conveyances  or  securities  consequences  society.  uncontrolled and  other  It  on  land".(31)  in  what  resulted  exchanges  securities.  of As  time  in  was large  mortgages, Blackstone  observes, "among persons of s u p e r i o r rank  [gaming] hath been  frequently  and  attended w i t h the  sudden r u i n  a n c i e n t and  opulent f a m i l i e s " . ( 3 2 ) The  the e f f e c t s  o f gambling  on m i l i t a r y  by a focus, on i t s consequences  desolation  e a r l i e r concern w i t h  r e a d i n e s s was  f o r the p r o p e r t i e d  replaced classes.  30 e.g. 12 Geo.II, c.28 (1739) p r o h i b i t e d ace o f h e a r t s , pharoah, b a s s e t and hazard. A y e a r l a t e r , 13 Geo.II, c.19 (1740) p r o h i b i t e d a l l games i n v o l v i n g d i c e , except backgammon. 31 M i e r s , "A S o c i a l and L e g a l H i s t o r y of Gaming: From the R e s t o r a t i o n t o the Gaming Act, 1845", (Unpublished paper p r e s e n t e d a t the meeting of the West Coast Law and S o c i e t y group, Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y , Burnaby B.C., May, 1988) p. 4. 32 Supra f n . 17 a t  170.  of  16  This which  provoked  was  apparently  gambling. U n l i k e the  lower  civil  the  i n nature.  Act  against  or  failed  further  hundred pounds one  time  or  provisions  sum  "any  that  what  sterling  meeting"  gambling  and  the  premium  sum  so a c q u i r e d .  the  and  and  i n 1710  d i s o r d e r l y and  times  with  the  Crown.  was  permitted  loss, to  as a reward. I t  in  excess  of  one  incurred "at  unenforceable. by  sue  An  Act  any  These  for better  d e c e i t f u l gaming,(35) which s e t standard  debts  ten  in  principles  English  pounds s t e r l i n g  33 M i e r s , supra f n . 31 a t 7.  35 9 Anne c.14  person"  void  f o r f r a u d was  34 16 C a r . I I , c.7  largely  civil  regarding law.  All  s e c u r i t i e s r e l a t i n g t o gambling debts were  anyone l o s i n g  and  among  f o r three  so recovered  f o r gaming debts  were  be  contracts  notes, b i l l s void;  to  excessive  that  l o s e r ' s share  were strengthened  were  at  play  I t provided  sue  a l l securities  p r e v e n t i n g o f e x c e s s i v e and out  deceitful,  i n 1664.(34)  r e c o v e r the  declared  and  at  t o sue w i t h i n s i x months of the  then d u r i n g the next year i n h i s p l a c e and  cheating  p r o v i s i o n s were  fraud could  s h a r i n g the  I f the v i c t i m  these  passed  of c h e a t i n g  lost,  at  enactments d i r e c t e d a t gambling  gaming was  the v i c t i m sum  An  aimed  widespread,(33)  c l a s s e s , however,  excessive  the  legislation  (1664).  (1710).  o r more c o u l d  increased to  five  times  sue the  17  As  to  the  success  of  these  measures,  Miers  observes,(36) These p r o v i s i o n s a r e , g i v e n t h e c o n d i t i o n s f o r t h e c r e a t i o n and enforcement o f t h e law a t t h e time, remarkable and i m a g i n a t i v e ways o f c o p i n g w i t h a s e r i o u s problem, but they do n o t appear t o have enjoyed complete s u c c e s s . S t a r t i n g from t h e premiss t h a t c a r d p l a y i n g o r d i c i n g were themselves u n l i k e l y t o d i m i n i s h without some e x t e r n a l p r e s s u r e , t h e l e g i s l a t i v e t a c t i c was simply t o make i t f i n a n c i a l l y u n a t t r a c t i v e t o gamble on t h e i r outcome .... But t h e s e e m a s c u l a t i n g p r o v i s i o n s a l s o had a l i b e r a t i n g e f f e c t , s i n c e f o r t h e purposes o f gambling transactions, money or i t s surrogates assumed a fictitious quality: they f a c i l i t a t e d t h e gaming without t r a n s f e r r i n g a n y t h i n g o f v a l u e between t h e p l a y e r s . The s c a r c i t y o f a c t i o n s .... suggests t h a t , f o r many, gaming l o s s e s were indeed met as a matter o f honour; t h e p r o t e c t i o n a f f o r d e d t o s e c u r i t i e s , on t h e o t h e r hand, does appear t o have been a s u c c e s s . Although t h e r e were many who were r u i n e d by deep gaming, t h i s r u i n a t i o n d i d not i n e v i t a b l y r e s u l t i n t h e wholesale t r a n s f e r o f r e a l p r o p e r t y . S i m i l a r l y , i t was B l a c k s t o n e ' s assessment  t h a t , although t h e  l e g i s l a t i o n d i r e c t e d towards gaming was c o p i o u s , i t met w i t h little  success due mainly t o t h e p r e v a i l i n g p u b l i c  sentiment  r e g a r d i n g such pastimes and t h e e f f o r t s o f "our m a g i s t r a t e s in  putting  those  laws  i n execution".(37)  Indeed,  a  conducted by a S e l e c t Committee o f t h e House o f Lords that  between  unlawful  1662 and 1843 t h e r e were o n l y  games,  and 44  actions  survey found  116 t r i a l s o f  on t h e e n f o r c e a b i l i t y  securities.(38)  36 Supra f n . 31 a t 7-8. 37 Supra f n . 17 a t 173. 38 Great B r i t a i n . House o f Lords S e l e c t Committee on t h e Laws R e s p e c t i n g Gaming, Reports (London, 1844).  of  18  Regarding to  the  limited  e r a d i c a t e gambling,  utility  of  legislative  attempts  Holdsworth p o s t u l a t e s t h a t i t i s "the  n a t u r a l i n s t i n c t of mankind t o gamble and b e t " . A c c o r d i n g l y , the  most  excessive  that  can  gambling  be  achieved  should  be  by made  legislation more  is  that  difficult.  He  c o n t i n u e s on a p r o p h e t i c note,(39) Moreover, i f , as i n these cases o f gambling and b e t t i n g and d r i n k i n g , p r a c t i c e s e x i s t which are not p e r se immoral, and are so deeply r o o t e d i n man's nature t h a t they cannot be w h o l l y suppressed, i t i s l e g i t i m a t e f o r the s t a t e t o make some p r o f i t f o r i t s e l f by p e r m i t t i n g t h e i r indulgence a t a p r i c e . " F i n a l l y , he laments the abandonment of s t a t e l o t t e r i e s , f o r , by the time he was  c h r o n i c l i n g the h i s t o r y  of English  law,  p r i v a t e and p u b l i c l o t t e r i e s had been a b o l i s h e d , l a r g e l y to  the widespread  position,  which  fraud  was  and  to  be  though not i n B r i t a i n , was  corruption ultimately  a t t e n d i n g them. H i s accepted  l o t t e r i e s and  p r o f i t s a c c r u i n g would be devoted t o worthy Private late  lotteries  Middle  proclamation  Ages, as  a u t h o r i z e d l o t t e r y was  39 Holdsworth, 40 I b i d a t  were not  but  early  i n Canada,  t h a t s t a t e l o t t e r i e s would be  worse than the e v i l s of i l l i c i t  they as  1621.(41)  launched i n 1566  supra f n . 27 a t  543.  41 S t r e e t , supra f n . 19 a t  205.  "at l e a s t  542.  forbidden The  no the  causes".(40)  unknown i n England were  due  by  first  i n the Royal state-  i n order to finance  19  the r e p a i r o f harbours and other Lotteries within  quickly  Prerogative,  schemes.  A  lottery  hence  could  promoters had secured a patent lotteries  were  plantations  used  and  projects.(42)  came t o be viewed as a form o f monopoly  t h e Royal  private  p u b l i c works  f o r such  improving  the p r o s c r i p t i o n of  only  be  run a f t e r i t s  from t h e Crown. Other projects  t h e London  as  the  water  early  Virginia  supply.  They  performed t h e f u n c t i o n o f modern-day t a x a t i o n . In  1699  a l l lotteries  were  declared  nuisances and were s u b j e c t t o a b l a n k e t future,  the  authorized  only  permitted  to  be  public  p r o h i b i t i o n . In t h e  lotteries  by an A c t o f Parliament.(43)  would Using  be  those  this  power,  s t a t e l o t t e r i e s were r e v i v e d i n 1710 and, except from 18141819,  they  finally  were  held  abolished  annually  until  1823 when  were  by t h e L o t t e r i e s A c t , 1823.(44) They had  become t h e t a r g e t o f growing c r i t i c i s m outside  they  o f government. W r i t i n g  from both i n s i d e and  i n 1776, t h e economist Adam  Smith denounced t h e l o t t e r y as an i n h e r e n t l y l o s i n g v e n t u r e for  the participants:(45) The chance overvalued, undervalued  o f g a i n i s by every man more o r l e s s and t h e chance o f l o s s i s by most men ... t h a t t h e chance o f g a i n i s n a t u r a l l y  42 T h i s f i r s t s t a t e l o t t e r y i s d i s c u s s e d Ashton, supra f n . 5 a t 222-224.  extensively i n  43 L o t t e r i e s A c t 10 & 11 W i l l . I l l , c.17. 44 4 Geo.IV, c.60. 45 The Wealth o f Nations (New York: The Modern L i b r a r y , 1937) pp. 107-108.  20 o v e r v a l u e d , we may g l e a n from the u n i v e r s a l success of l o t t e r i e s . The world never saw, nor ever w i l l see a p e r f e c t l y f a i r l o t t e r y ; or one i n which the whole g a i n compensated f o r the whole l o s s ; because the undertaker would make n o t h i n g by i t .... The more t i c k e t s you [wager].. .upon, the more l i k e l y you are t o be a l o s e r . Buy them a l l and you are sure t o l o s e . A House o f Commons Committee, which was study  lotteries,  concluded  that  appointed i n 1808  "the  l o t t e r y system  i s so r a d i c a l l y v i c i o u s ,  feel  that  can  convinced be  devised,  under no  will  i t be  e f f i c a c i o u s source o f revenue, it  of  a l l the  evils  which  b a n e f u l a source".(46)  system  foundation t h a t your  of  possible  of  adopt  which  i t as  and, a t the same time, i t has,  hitherto,  an  divest  proved  A f t e r some d e l a y , P a r l i a m e n t  a c t e d on the Committee's recommendation t o a b o l i s h  the  Committee  regulations, to  to  so  finally  lotteries  i n B r i t a i n and they have never been r e i n s t a t e d t h e r e . By  the  Canadian own  of  the  18th  century,  t h e r e f o r e , when  c o l o n i a l l e g i s l a t u r e s were b e g i n n i n g t o enact  laws,  there  end  was  tradition  building  on  the  received English  a well-established, of p r o h i b i t i n g  common gaming houses,  though  gambling  wholly  law,  effective  and p u b l i c l o t t e r i e s were f a l l i n g  supra f n . 5 a t  their  i n i t s v a r i o u s forms  disfavour.  46 C i t e d by Ashton,  not  criminal  the  238.  at  into  21  The L e g a l S t a t u s o f ftamhiing i n P r e - C o n f e d e r a t i o n In early  Lower Canada 1800s  to  (Quebec) t h e r e was  reinforce  the  an  Canada  attempt  imperial  in  the  prohibition  of  gambling i n common gaming houses. An A c t More E f f e c t i v e l y t o P r o v i d e f o r the R e g u l a t i o n o f the P o l i c e i n Quebec, Montreal and T r o i s - R i v i e r e s etc.(47)  empowered l o c a l  j u s t i c e s of  the  peace t o impose p e n a l t i e s on "the p e r n i c i o u s v i c e of gaming which has become extremely p r e v a l e n t i n p u b l i c houses". In a curious  echo  of  earlier  English  legislation,  these  anti-  gambling p r o v i s i o n s were d i r e c t e d a t any gaming i n any house, out-house, apartment or ground b e l o n g i n g t o o r i n h i s or her o c c u p a t i o n , f o r money l i q u o r o r otherwise, e i t h e r w i t h c a r d s , d i c e , draughts, s h u f f l e - b o a r d , s k i t t l e s , n i n e - p i n s , o r w i t h any o t h e r implement or i n any o t h e r manner o f gaming, by any journeyman. apprentice. labourer or servant (emphasis added). After  Upper  Province  of  legislature, statute, other  "peaceable,  Canada in  or  and  " t o p l a y any  terms  broader,  of  was  were  the  amalgamated  Union  essentially  "the keeper o f every  place  be  Canada  under  what  decent  t h i n g which can The  Lower  enjoined  house  person  and  of  a  Act, liquor  p u b l i c entertainment"  licensing inn  ...  to  keep  or a any  game whatsoever a t which money o r  any  gambling  i n money s h a l l  be  p r o h i b i t i o n s were  the same time, t h e i r g e o g r a p h i c a l scope was (1817) (Lower Canada).  won  or  becoming  i n t h a t any game i n v o l v i n g money was  47 57 G e o . I l l , c.16  the  to allow  valued  not  the  1840,  licensed  o r d e r l y " house and  into  lost". much  p r o s c r i b e d . At  a l s o expanding.  22  Regarding  lotteries,  the s i t u a t i o n  was more  complex.  Under r e c e i v e d E n g l i s h law, l o t t e r i e s were a p u b l i c  nuisance  u n l e s s a u t h o r i z e d by t h e Crown. F a i r l y made  to  Governor  these General  enabling  powers.  Haldimand  In  approved  legislative  council  o f Lower Canada  organize  lottery  to raise  a  funds  frequent r e s o r t 1783,  a  to build  M o n t r e a l . Over 4,500 pounds n e t was r a i s e d through  the lottery.(48)  f o r example,  petition  seeking  was  from  the  permission t o a  prison i n  for this  project  In 1819, t h e l e g i s l a t u r e  o f Nova  S c o t i a passed an A c t a u t h o r i z i n g a l o t t e r y t o r a i s e money t o build  a  bridge  over  the  river  Avon.(49)  The  colonial  governments found themselves having t o r e l y on l o t t e r i e s f o r much t h e same reason as England 17th  centuries:  there  was  no  had had t o i n t h e 16th and alternate  source  of  f u n d i n g . In a new country w i t h few sources o f c a p i t a l ,  public there  48 Labrosse, supra f n . 7 a t 57 quotes from a l e t t e r sent by Haldimand t o Lord North i n London i n which he s t a t e s , " I had some r e l u c t a n c e t o g i v e my assent t o t h e Ordinance f o r r a i s i n g by a l o t t e r y a sum o f money f o r t h e purpose o f b u i l d i n g a p r i s o n a t Montreal, but as a p r i s o n was necessary as I t h i n k i t was v e r y u n j u s t t h a t t h e money o f t h e B r i t i s h n a t i o n should be employed i n p r o v i d i n g l o c a l conveniences f o r t h e i n h a b i t a n t s o f t h i s p r o v i n c e , I gave my a s s e n t t o it." 49 1819 Nova S c o t i a S t a t u t e s a t Large v.3,(1817-1826). As e a r l y as 1781, t h e L i e u t e n a n t Governor o f t h e p r o v i n c e had a u t h o r i z e d t h e r a i s i n g o f funds by l o t t e r y f o r t h e b u i l d i n g o f a p u b l i c s c h o o l i n H a l i f a x . The t e x t o f t h i s r o y a l p r o c l a m a t i o n i s s e t out i n f u l l i n Canada. House o f Commons Debates (1934) 5th Sess. 17th P a r i . V o l . I l l p, 3308.  23  was  little  choice  but  to  raise  money  f o r p u b l i c works  by  t h i s method.(50) I t has  been noted  o f the primary for  t h a t , i n the American c o l o n i e s ,  f u n c t i o n s of l o t t e r i e s was  individuals  to  chronic currency  dispose  shortage.  of  property  I t was  one  to provide a i n the  difficult  face  to find  way  of  a  buyers  w i t h enough cash t o purchase a l a r g e item which r e s u l t e d i n houses and  real  property being disposed  lotteries.(51)  The  evidence  situation  no  different  was  C e r t a i n l y , the i n i t i a l o f t e n done by  available in  the  of through suggests Canadian  private  that  the  colonies.  d i s t r i b u t i o n of land to s e t t l e r s  l o t . For example, a government study  of  was land  s e t t l e m e n t i n Upper Canada i n the p o s t - R e v o l u t i o n a r y War  era  d e s c r i b e s the a l l o t m e n t of l a n d t o L o y a l i s t s and e x - m i l i t a r y men  as  follows:(52)  The procedure i n a c t u a l l y a l l o c a t i n g these lands was v e r y simple . . . Where a surveyor p l a c e d a number o f s e t t l e r s t o g e t h e r on the l a n d , they drew l o t s f o r t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e s i t e s . A f t e r twelve months' o c c u p a t i o n , the h o l d e r o f a c e r t i f i c a t e was c o n s i d e r e d e n t i t l e d t o a permanent deed. 50 A s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n p r e v a i l e d i n the American c o l o n i e s where many famous p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n s such as Columbia, Harvard and Y a l e u n i v e r s i t i e s were e s t a b l i s h e d by funds r a i s e d through l o t t e r i e s : U.S. Department o f J u s t i c e , supra f n . 16 a t 75. 51 W e i n s t e i n and D e i t c h , The Impact of L e g a l i z e d Gambling: The Socio-Economic Consequences of L o t t e r i e s and O f f - T r a c k B e t t i n g (New York: Praeger, 1974) p. 8. 52 O n t a r i o Department of A r c h i v e s , S i x t e e n t h Report: Land Settlement i n Upper Canada 1783-1840 (by G.C. Paterson) (Toronto: King's P r i n t e r , 1921.  24  Similarly,  i n d e s c r i b i n g t h e settlement  Upper Canada,  Guillet  example,  township  each  notes  that  i n Glengarry  was assigned  were then numbered and p l a c e d  of c e r t a i n parts of County, f o r  t o a corps,  the l o t s  i n a h a t and each s o l d i e r i n  t u r n drew h i s grant.(53) It  was a s h o r t  disposing illegal long  from d i s t r i b u t i n g l a n d  o f i t by l o t t e r y ,  under  imperial  on t h e i r  almost  step  initial  immediately.  grants  gambling  i n land  Lotteries.(55) prohibiting chattels  by  the  was  An  "the p r a c t i c e  o f any p r o p e r t y  shortage  of  cash  of land.  established  asserted of  l o t o r chance".  disposal  d i d not remain  very  Further, early  barter,  the d e s i r a b i l i t y  selling Without  exchange  "by l o t s ,  lands,  goods  exception,  the property  in  or  other  tickets,  of of and  the Act method  of  o r any mode o f  chance whatever". Any l o t t e r y t r a n s a c t i o n was d e c l a r e d and  made  A c t f o r the Suppression  The preamble  the sale,  was  i n 1856, t h e L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly  passed  forbade  speaking,  r e l i n q u i s h i n g them  f o r disposing  grants  Canada.(54) A c c o r d i n g l y , Canada  of land,  Again,  a p o p u l a r method  United  strictly  law. Many s e t t l e r s  lotteries  of  which,  by l o t t o  void,  i n v o l v e d f o r f e i t e d " t o such person as s h a l l  53 G u i l l e t , E a r l y L i f e i n Upper Canada (Toronto: U n i v e r s i t y o f Toronto Press, 1963, r e p r i n t e d from 1933) p. 38. 54 I b i d a t 53, 342. G u i l l e t notes t h a t l a n d g r a n t s were o f t e n wagered a t horse races i n t h e "backwoods s e t t l e m e n t s " o f Richmond, P e r t h and Bytown. 55 S.C. 1856, c.49; Can. Consol.  S t a t . 1859, c.95.  25  sue  f o r t h e same by a c t i o n " though no such f o r f e i t u r e  affect  the r i g h t  or t i t l e  value.(56) I t s terms were  of a  bona  fide  could  purchaser f o r  absolute.  One commentator notes t h a t these measures emanated from a  l e g i s l a t u r e dominated by E n g l i s h ,  who chose t o o v e r r i d e clergy  which,  Protestant  politicians  t h e i n t e r e s t s o f t h e French  "good  works"  four  years,  however, t h e t o t a l p r o h i b i t i o n was r e l a x e d t o p e r m i t  raffles  through  for  f o r decades had been  lotteries  and  p r i z e s of small value  bazaars.(57)  f o r charitable objects,  the  municipality  as long  first  l e g i s l a t i v e assembly e x p l i c i t l y w i t h minor m o d i f i c a t i o n s , century: chance  Within  i . e . not exceeding $50, a t bazaars  held  was  financing  Catholic  as t h e p e r m i s s i o n  obtained.(58)  Thus,  of the  e s t a b l i s h e d a scheme which,  was t o remain i n p l a c e  f o r over a  t h e p r o h i b i t i o n o f a l l l o t t e r i e s and other games o f with  operations  the  exception  under m u n i c i p a l  of  small-scale  charitable  control.  56 In 1864 l e g i s l a t i o n was enacted t o make c l e a r t h a t l a n d which had been a c q u i r e d by l o t t e r y o r chance p r i o r t o t h e 1850 l e g i s l a t i o n would not be d i s t u r b e d : An A c t t o Q u i e t T i t l e s t o C e r t a i n P r o p e r t i e s S o l d by L o t S.C. 1864, c.32. 57 Labrosse, supra f n . 7 a t 82. An American commentary notes t h a t C a t h o l i c s have t r a d i t i o n a l l y been t h e r e l i g i o u s group l e a s t opposed t o gambling, w i t h t h e i r o f f i c i a l p o s i t i o n b e i n g one o f acceptance i f moderation i s p r a c t i c e d and f r a u d i s not i n v o l v e d : W e i n s t e i n and D e i t c h , supra f n . 51 a t 8. Over t h e next one hundred years, t h e C a t h o l i c Church and t h e l a r g e l y C a t h o l i c p o p u l a t i o n i n Quebec would be c o n s i s t e n t l y supportive of l o t t e r i e s . 58 An A c t t o Amend Chapter 95 o f the C o n s o l i d a t e d o f Canada e t c . S.C. i860, c.36.  Statutes  26  Confederation t o C o d i f i c a t i o n In 1867, t h e B r i t i s h  North America  Act(59) u n i t e d t h e  p r o v i n c e s o f Nova S c o t i a ,  New Brunswick  and Canada  (Quebec  and O n t a r i o ) "under t h e name o f Canada". The o t h e r r e g i o n s of  Canada j o i n e d  t h e union a t v a r i o u s  ( B r i t i s h Columbia) was  adopted  distribution  points  between 1871  and 1949 (Newfoundland). A f e d e r a l  f o r t h e Dominion  o f Canada,  which  o f powers between  the c e n t r a l  system  made t h e  and p r o v i n c i a l  l e v e l s o f government a key element o f t h e 1867 Act.(60) F o r present  purposes  i t i s important t o note t h a t  s.91(27) o f  the A c t g r a n t s t h e f e d e r a l P a r l i a m e n t t h e e x c l u s i v e power t o legislate  i n relation  to criminal  law and procedure.  As  w e l l , P a r l i a m e n t has t h e r e s i d u a l power t o secure t h e peace, order  and  good  legislatures,  government  on  the other  p r o p e r t y and c i v i l residuary nature  rights  of  Canada.  hand,  have  the  provincial  jurisdiction  over  i n t h e p r o v i n c e (s.92(13)) and a  power over matters o f a merely  in  The  province  (s.92(16)).  local  or private  Consequently,  the  c r i m i n a l p r o h i b i t i o n o f gambling and l o t t e r i e s was a matter for  the federal  government  o f Canada. Nonetheless,  i n the  59 30 & 31 V i c t . , c . 3 . T h i s s t a t u t e i s now known as t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t , 1867. 60 F o r a more d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e B r i t i s h North America A c t and Canadian f e d e r a l i s m , see Hogg, C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Law o f Canada (Toronto: C a r s w e l l , 1977) chaps. 2-3.  27  years  immediately  following  Confederation,  provincial  l e g i s l a t u r e s c o n t i n u e d t o l e g i s l a t e i n r e l a t i o n t o gambling. Provincial  enactments  originating  i n Nova  O n t a r i o were designed t o r e p r e s s gambling. legislation  protecting  public  morals,  S c o t i a and  F o r example, i n  the  Nova  Scotia  l e g i s l a t u r e p e n a l i z e d keeping a common gaming house as w e l l as  running  or taking  part  in a  lottery  or  raffle.(61)  O n t a r i o t a r g e t e d gambling i n i t s l i q u o r l i c e n s i n g and Sunday observance  legislation.  The  h o l d e r who p e r m i t t e d gambling latter  former  These  a  license-  on t h e premises,(62)  forbade gambling w i t h d i c e ,  Sundays.(63)  penalized  developments  foot  and t h e  and horse r a c e s on  resulted  partly  from t h e  f a c t t h a t i t took t h e f e d e r a l government almost t e n y e a r s t o produce  legislation  directed  towards  gambling  and  partly  from t h e o v e r l a p between gambling and o t h e r a c t i v i t i e s , as  liquor  control,  which  were  within  such  provincial  jurisdiction. Legislation  enacted  i n Quebec,  by  comparison,  was  q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t i n t h a t i t was p e r m i s s i v e i n n a t u r e . A n A c t t o Amend t h e Laws R e s p e c t i n g  Bazaars  and L o t t e r i e s  61 R.S.N.S. (5th ser.) 1884, c.160. 62 T h e L i q u o r L i c e n s e A c t R.S.O. 1887 c.194, s.73. 63 T h e L o r d ' s Day A c t R.S.O. 1887, c.203. P r o v i n c i a l Sunday observance l e g i s l a t i o n was d e c l a r e d t o be u l t r a v i r e s i n Attorney General o f Ontario v. Hamilton Street Railway [1903] A.C. 524 (P.C.) and was r e p l a c e d by a s i m i l a r f e d e r a l enactment.  2 8  p a s s e d  b y  t h e  Q u e b e c  l e g i s l a t u r e  i n  1 8 6 9 , ( 6 4 )  e x p a n d e d  t h e  e x c e p t i o n s t o t h e Suppression o f L o t t e r i e s A c t , 1856 i n t h e Act o f N w t s b c e s i l a o b s  h h u u h d o n o m f a e  1 8 6 0 .T h e p r i n c i p l e s e c t i o n r e a d s ,  o t w i t h s t a n d i n g e v e r yp r o v i s i o n t o t h e c o n t r a r y e n e v e r i t i s i n t e n d e d t o h o l d a b a z a a r o r l o t t e r y , e o b j e c t w h e r e o f i s t o a s s i s t i n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o r p p o r t o f a n y c h u r c h , c h a p e l , o r o t h e r r e l i g i o u s i l d i n g , o f a n h o s p i t a l , o f a n a s y l u m , o r a n y a r i t a b l e e s t a b l i s h m e n t w h a t e v e r , o r o f a n y u c a t i o n a l e s t a b l i s h m e n t , o r o f a c o l o n i z a t i o n c i e t y , w i t h i n t h e l i m i t s o f t h i s p r o v i n c e , o r t o a i d t h e p a y m e n t o f t h e d e b t t h e r e o f , s u c h b a z a a r o r t t e r y m a y t a k e p l a c e w i t h o u t a n y r e s t r i c t i o n a s t o o u n t ; p r o v i d e d t h e t h i n g s o f f e r e d o r t o b e d i s p o s e d b y l o t t e r y d o n o t c o n s i s t o f s u m s o f m o n e y , n o t e s , n k - n o t e s , b o n d s , d e b e n t u r e s o r o t h e r n e g o t i a b l e c u r i t i e s o f l i k e n a t u r e .  T h e  t e r m s  t o  o n e  o f  t h i s  i n f l u e n c e d  i t  b y  t h e  c r e a t i o n u h e e  B y i t s  o f  t o w a r d s  t r a d i t i o n a l  e n t r y  Houses s e a r c h 1 8 6 9 ,  b y  i a t e d i t r e v a i l i a l l o f 1 8 6 0 , r i o f  w a s  t h e  s e l n t w h i g h t  f c l e a r l h e o t h e r c h s t r i c d o w n t o  I t s  i n  r e l a t i o n  C . 3 6 .  6 4  S . Q .  6 5  L a b r o s s e , supra f n . 7 a t  8 3 ,  8 4 .  o f  t h e  f a c i l i t a t e d  y  f r o m p r o v i n c t l y o b s t h e y e a  h a d  b e g u n  f i r s t  p r e s c r i b e d  s e i z u r e  a n  t h e  C h u r c h : ( 6 5 )  C a n a d a  g a m b l i n g .  o f  s t r o n g l y  e l i m i n a t i o n  p r i z e s  ..  A c c o r d i n g  r e s t o r a t i o n  w h i c h T h e  o f  b r o a d .  t o  t h e l a w s e s o f t h e e r v e d t h e r 1 9 7 0 . t o  t a r g e t  o n e : c o m m o n g a m i n g h o u s e s . Act  a n d  C h u r c h .  r u n  P a r l i a m e n t  t h e  Q u e b e c  v a l u e  l o t t e r i e s  t h e  a t t e n t i o n  Gaming  t h e  e b e c t h u s d i s s o c a t c o n t i n u e d t o p w C o n f e d e r a t i o n , s t r i c t i v e l a w o f 1 8 7 5  u n d e n i a b l y f r o m  i n  C a t h o l i c o n  h u g e  a r e  r e s u l t e d  l e g i s l a t u r e  r e s t r i c t i o n  Q t n r  a m e n d m e n t  o b s e r v e r  a u t o n o m o u s  $ 5 0  f o u n  d i r e c t w a s  T h e Suppression  e x t e n s i v e c o m m o n  a  g a m i n g  p o l i c e h o u s e s  o p  29  and  facilitated  prosecution  s t a t u t o r y presumptions what c o n s t i t u t e s  and  regarding  conviction  by  creating  evidence o f gaming and o f  a common gaming house.  F o r example,  "any  c a r d s , d i c e , b a l l s , c o u n t e r s , t a b l e s o r o t h e r instruments o f gaming used i n p l a y i n g any u n l a w f u l game" i s , under the A c t , evidence t h a t t h e house, are  found  contrary  i s used be  as a common  made  to  appear".  s . 3 of  room o r p l a c e where they gaming  house,  Further,  " u n t i l the the  willful  o b s t r u c t i o n o f "any c o n s t a b l e o r o f f i c e r " s e e k i n g t o e n t e r a place  suspected o f b e i n g a common gaming house  c r e a t e s an  e v i d e n t i a r y presumption t h a t such p l a c e i s , absent p r o o f t o the  contrary,  a  common  gaming  amendment added t h e punishment gaming  house.(66)  subsequent  o f persons found i n a common  house.(67)  There were two a d d i t i o n s t o t h e f e d e r a l in  A  1877: an enactment  t o repress  betting  law on gaming  and p o o l - s e l l i n g  w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f b e t s between i n d i v i d u a l s , i . e . p r i v a t e wagers,(68) certain  and a more unusual p r o h i b i t i o n  public  conveyances,(69)  which  o f gambling on  remained  on t h e  66 S u b s t a n t i a l l y s i m i l a r p r o v i s i o n s remain p a r t o f Canadian c r i m i n a l law. See C r i m i n a l Code o f C a n a d a , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s.198. 67 T h e S u p p r e s s i o n o f G a m i n g H o u s e s Amendment A c t , S.C. 1877, C.33, S.4. 68 T h e R e p r e s s i o n o f B e t t i n g a n d P o o l - s e l l i n g A c t , S.C.1877, c.31. 69 T h e P r e v e n t i o n o f G a m b l i n g P r a c t i c e s i n c e r t a i n C o n v e y a n c e s A c t , S.C. 1877, c.32.  Public  30  statute first such  books  until  1986.(70)  When  the  latter  r e a d i n g i n the House of Commons i t was a  large  law  was  railways  necessary were  complaining  " t h r e e c a r d monte men" When  the  lively  Bill  was  because  explained that  managers  about  given  the  of  certain  activities  of  i . e . c a r d sharps on t h e i r t r a i n s . ( 7 1 )  considered  d i s c u s s i o n as  the  was  in  committee,  t o whether t h i s  should apply t o B r i t i s h Columbia. The  there  was  a  l e g i s l a t i o n could  or  debate i s r e p o r t e d  as  follows:(72) Mr. Bunster s a i d the miners of B r i t i s h Columbia must have something t o amuse themselves w i t h . . . [they] t r a v e l l e d a g r e a t d e a l on steamboats, and had t o w i l e away the hours somehow. The miners were the bone and sinew o f the country and d e l i v e r e d v a s t wealth from the bowels of the e a r t h ... S i r James Douglas, one of the best of Governors, said: "Let the boys enjoy themselves", and t h i s was the c o r r e c t p r i n c i p l e . He doubted v e r y much whether the Dominion had the r i g h t t o i n t e r f e r e w i t h the P r o v i n c e i n these matters. The Government's response rule  for  British  was  Columbia.  t h a t t h e r e would be no Nonetheless,  as  i t was  intended t o apply the law t o steamboats immediately, the express  terms of the  l e g i s l a t i o n , and  r a i l w a y s i n t h a t p r o v i n c e a t the time,  1877.  70 S.C.  c.  1985,  despite  "at present  Ibid.  73  Ibid.  no  [the A c t ]  passed  into  52.  71 Canada, House o f Commons, Debates (1877) 4th Sess. P a r i . 338. 72  not  as t h e r e were  would not apply t o B r i t i s h Columbia".(73) I t was law i n March  special  3rd  31  The  next  amendment 1883,  of  legislative the  provision  "established  development  Suppression  was  for  1846  the  encouragement  The  of the fine  Statutes  amended  1856  of  Act  Act,  further 1856.  a r t " to  society,  distribute  mirrored a B r i t i s h  statute  r u n by A r t U n i o n s " f o r t h e  arts".(75)  Canada  was  of  In  were  amalgamated  revised with  in  the  1886.  Repression  The of  a n d P o o l - s e l l i n g A c t , 1877 t o become t h e L o t t e r i e s ,  Betting  and  respecting was  This  which l e g a l i z e d l o t t e r i e s  encouragement  Betting  Lotteries  the  made t o p e r m i t any i n c o r p o r a t e d  works o f a r t by l o t t e r y . ( 7 4 ) of  of  was  gaming  reinacted The  houses  virtually  final  codification targeting  Pool-selling  enactment of  gaming  the  Act  and  (76)  and  the  legislation  g a m b l i n g on p u b l i c  conveyances  unchanged.(77) r e l a t i n g t o gambling  criminal  law  in  1892  prior  was  a  i n s t o c k s and m e r c h a n d i s e . ( 7 8 ) The  to  the  statute Preamble  states: Whereas gaming and w a g e r i n g on t h e r i s e a n d f a l l i n v a l u e o f s t o c k s and m e r c h a n d i s e a r e d e t r i m e n t a l to c o m m e r c i a l and p u b l i c m o r a l i t y , and p l a c e s affording facilities f o r such gaming and wagering, commonly  74 L o t t e r i e s Amendment A c t , S.C. 1883, c.36. 75 9 & 10 V i c t . , c.48 76 R.S.C. 1886,  C.159.  77 R.S.C. 1886,  c.158  (1846).  and c.160,  respectively.  78 The Gaming i n S t o c k s a n d M e r c h a n d i s e A c t , S.C. 1888, c. 42.  32 c a l l e d bucket shops, a r e b e i n g e s t a b l i s h e d ; and i t i s e x p e d i e n t t o p r e v e n t s u c h g a m i n g and w a g e r i n g . . . What  is  being  prohibited  s p e c u l a t i o n on are  known  intends and  as  are  from the  w i t h o u t any fictional  considerable  of the  gambling. result  entered  to  into  employed legal  At  a  of  course,  the  of  end  a  speculator  mere  simple  the  may  be  the  of  sale  machinery,  and  breach  could  have  of which  the or  same as  transaction, has  stocks same.  As  one  i t s operations  borderland  speculative  clock.  what  person  a c q u i r i n g the  against  the  a  i n the p r i c e of  difference  which  for a  whereby  S t o c k E x c h a n g e and l i e on  different  or  or f a l l  i n t e n t i o n of ever  the  obligations  enforced,  rise  extent  the a  not,  transactions,  transactions  commentator n o t e s , a  is  S t o c k M a r k e t , b u t m a r k e t r i g g i n g and  difference  to gain  shares  They  the  here  been  subject  purchase, i f he  "but  utilized  to  he  had has  separate  specifically  damages c o u l d  have  been  recovered."(79)  The  C r i m i n a l Code o f Canada(80) The  Unlike  legislation  the  organized principles,  enacted  i n 1892  codes found i n c i v i l around,  and  derived  S.C.  jurisdictions,  from,  articulated  w h i c h a r e a d h e r e d t o c o n s i s t e n t l y and  79 C o l d r i d g e and H a w k s f o r d , The R e e v e s and T u r n e r , 1 8 9 5 ) . 80  law  i s a c o d e i n name o n l y .  1892,  C.29.  Law  of Gambling  i t i s not rational coherently  (London:  33  throughout t h e body o f t h e code. Rather, i t i s a body o f law which  represents  a compromise  common law h e r i t a g e C a n a d a i s simply  between  law d e r i v e d  from  a  and a t r u e code. The C r i m i n a l C o d e o f  a compilation  o f t h e c r i m i n a l law (common  law and s t a t u t e ) as i t e x i s t e d i n 1892. In i n t r o d u c i n g t h e B i l l government  sponsor,  i n t o t h e House o f Commons,  S i r John  Thompson  explained  its its  genesis:(81) [W]hile we r e t a i n e d a l l t h e p a r t s o f our c r i m i n a l law which we found i n t h e Revised S t a t u t e s t h a t seemed t o be p a r t i c u l a r l y a p p l i c a b l e t o Canada, we had i n a l l o t h e r p o r t i o n s o f t h e measure f o l l o w e d t h e l a b o u r s o f the Commission i n Great B r i t a i n which was appointed t o e s t a b l i s h a c r i m i n a l code, f o l l o w i n g p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e l a t e s t r e v i s i o n o f t h e i r work. The  work t o which he r e f e r s i s t h a t o f S i r James Stephen,  whose e f f o r t s t o have t h e E n g l i s h c r i m i n a l law c o d i f i e d were to be u n s u c c e s s f u l . H i s endeavours met w i t h  greater  success  i n Canada. Indeed when those that  are  influence are  devoted  i s evident.  classified  betting  to  houses  as  portions  of the f i r s t  gambling  are  examined,  As i n h i s D i g e s t ,  common  a r e , along  nuisances; with  C r i m i n a l C o d e Stephen's  gambling  common  common  81 Canada. House o f Commons, Debates 2d Sess. 1892, p. 2701.  offences  gaming  bawdy  and  houses,  7th P a r i .  34  designated  as d i s o r d e r l y houses and Stephen's d e f i n i t i o n o f  a common gaming house i s adopted:(82) s . 1 9 6 . A common gaming-house i s (a) a house, room o r p l a c e kept by any person f o r g a i n , to which persons r e s o r t f o r t h e purpose o f p l a y i n g a t any game o f chance; o r (b) a house, room o r p l a c e kept o r used f o r p l a y i n g t h e r e i n a t any game o f chance, o r any mixed game o f chance o r s k i l l , i n which (i) a bank i s kept by one o r more o f t h e p l a y e r s e x c l u s i v e l y of the others; or ( i i ) i n which any game i s p l a y e d t h e chances o f which a r e n o t a l i k e f a v o u r a b l e t o a l l t h e p l a y e r s , i n c l u d i n g among t h e p l a y e r s t h e banker o r o t h e r person by whom t h e game i s managed, o r a g a i n s t whom t h e game i s managed, o r a g a i n s t whom t h e other p l a y e r s stake, p l a y o r bet. Otherwise,  t h e gambling  provisions  of the f i r s t  Criminal  Code were simply an amalgamation o f t h e r e l e v a n t chapters o f the  1886 Revised  Statutes  and t h e Gaming  i n Stocks and  M e r c h a n d i s e A c t , 1888.(83) 82 c . f . Stephen, A D i g e s t o f t h e C r i m i n a l Law (London: Macmillan, 1877) a r t i c l e 181: "A common gaming house i s a house kept o r used f o r p l a y i n g t h e r e i n a t any game o f chance, o r any mixed game o f chance and s k i l l , i n which (i) A bank i s kept by one o r more o f t h e p l a y e r s , e x c l u s i v e l y of the others; o r ( i i ) In which any game i s p l a y e d t h e chances o f which a r e n o t a l i k e f a v o u r a b l e t o a l l t h e p l a y e r s , i n c l u d i n g among t h e p l a y e r s t h e banker o r other person by whom t h e game i s managed, o r a g a i n s t whom t h e o t h e r p l a y e r s stake, p l a y o r bet." Stephen notes i n t h e appendix (Note XII) t h a t " [ t ] h e r e i s a good d e a l o f d i f f i c u l t y o f b r i n g i n g i n t o a c l e a r and s y s t e m a t i c form t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e v a r i o u s s t a t u t e s r e l a t i n g t o t h e s u p p r e s s i o n o f d i s o r d e r l y houses, and e s p e c i a l l y gaming houses." The complexity o f gaming l e g i s l a t i o n i s a r e c u r r i n g theme i n i t s h i s t o r y . 83 The o n l y p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s e a r l i e r Canadian l e g i s l a t i o n not t o be r e p e a l e d and r e p l a c e d by t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e C r i m i n a l Code were those s e c t i o n s o f t h e Gaming H o u s e s A c t , s s . 9 & 10, which enabled a m a g i s t r a t e t o compel those i n d i v i d u a l s found i n a common gaming house t o g i v e evidence  35  When  the Criminal  Commons,  the  attention. directed public  Code  gambling  was debated  sections  received  The l i m i t e d c o n s i d e r a t i o n  mainly  a t the sections  conveyances.  One  i n t h e House o f  they  little  d i d receive  relating  Member  very  t o gambling  criticized  them  was on as  "unnecessary l e g i s l a t i o n " : ( 8 4 ) People can take care o f themselves j u s t as w e l l i n a r a i l w a y c a r r i a g e as they can i n a c l u b o r p r i v a t e house. I do not t h i n k t h e s e c t i o n i s a good one. I f a man choses t o p l a y f o r a d o l l a r o r two i n a r a i l w a y c a r , and l o s e s i t , l e t him l o s e i t and have done w i t h i t . I o b j e c t t o having laws on our Statute-book which are not observed. Constant l e g i s l a t i o n a g a i n s t s o c i a l h a b i t s which i s n o t enforced i s c a l c u l a t e d t o b r i n g t h e law i n t o contempt. T h i s , however, was t h e o n l y the n e c e s s i t y  f o r , and u t i l i t y  of  The  gambling.  brought  with  question  of, the c r i m i n a l  codification of  i t no  major  directed  Canada's  departures  in  towards  sanctioning  criminal this  law  sphere.  Nonetheless, i t d i d f i n a l l y r e - a l i g n t h e s i t u a t i o n i n Quebec with that p r e v a i l i n g i n the r e s t of the country. From effectively  1869  to  ignored  1892,  the  the federal  r e l y i n g on t h e more p e r m i s s i v e was  challenged  same time t h a t  i n t h e Quebec the Criminal  Quebec  government  had  prohibition of l o t t e r i e s ,  provincial legislation. courts  This  i n May, 1892, a t t h e  Code was b e i n g  debated  i n the  House o f Commons. I t was, i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y , a t e s t case t o r e g a r d i n g t h e a c t i v i t i e s t h e r e i n , and t o r e l i e v e such w i t n e s s e s o f any c r i m i n a l l i a b i l i t y f o r those a c t i o n s . 84 Canada. House o f Commons Debates, supra f n . 81 a t 2976.  36  determine  the  fundamental  issue  of  jurisdiction  over  l o t t e r i e s , pending t h e enactment o f t h e C r i m i n a l Code. I n R. v. Harper,(85) t h e defendants, l o t t e r y o r g a n i z e r s , who were charged Betting was  with  an  infringement  and P o o l - s e l l i n g  ultra  Act,  v i r e s the Federal  of  the f e d e r a l  argued t h a t  Parliament.  such  Lotteries, legislation  They a s s e r t e d  that  l e g a l c o n t r o l s on l o t t e r i e s were not t r u e c r i m i n a l o f f e n c e s , but  "simple  domain  infractions"  which  of the provincial  were  within  legislature.  This  the exclusive r a t i o n a l e was  r e j e c t e d by t h e c o u r t which endorsed f e d e r a l paramountcy i n the f i e l d : ( 8 6 ) [ I ] t cannot be denied t h a t t h e F e d e r a l Parliament, i n which each p r o v i n c e i s represented, has t h e power t o d e c l a r e obnoxious, i n j u r i o u s o r mischievous anything which i t may b e l i e v e t o be so i n t h e i n t e r e s t o f t h e Dominion a t l a r g e .... t h e F e d e r a l Parliament had i m p l i c i t l y the r i g h t t o consider l o t t e r i e s i n general, c o n t r a r y t o good order and t h e i n t e r e s t s o f t h e p u b l i c , t o l e g i s l a t e a g a i n s t them .... This which  soon  judgement, followed,  minor e x c e p t i o n s and  other  and t h e passage made  contained  of the Criminal  i t c l e a r that,  i n s.205 o f t h e l a t t e r ,  games o f chance were i l l e g a l  almost e i g h t y y e a r s ,  subject  across  Code  t o the  lotteries  Canada. F o r  t h i s s i t u a t i o n was t o remain  virtually  unchanged.  85  (1892) 15 The L e g a l News 179 (Quebec M a g i s t r a t e s  86 I b i d a t 184-185 p e r M a g i s t r a t e  Dugas.  Court).  37  T i n k e r i n g w i t h the After  the  Law  enactment  of  the  first  Criminal  p r o v i s i o n s r e l a t i n g t o gaming were, u n t i l 1969, to  fairly  minor r e v i s i o n s . ( 8 7 )  prohibited amended  For  example,  in  1900(88)  to  for  "any  provide  that  small  d i s t r i b u t i o n by  of a r t , o f any  p a i n t i n g s " was of the  enacted and  At  r e f e r r e d only  the  f o r the  same time,  (Amendment)  i n R.  Bill  first v.  which  "any  holders  of  encouragement  repealed.  debates i n the  since  i t was  decision  was  raffles  House o f Commons  i s s u e , i t would appear t h a t t h i s exemption had  a source of c o n t r o v e r s y  of the  which  " c h a r i t a b l e or  members o r t i c k e t  society established  From a r e a d i n g  was  only  found i n s . 2 0 5 ( 6 ) ( c ) , p e r m i t t i n g  l o t among the  incorporated  on t h i s  205,  scale  bazaar h e l d f o r any  charitable object".  however, the e x c e p t i o n  any  subject s.  r e l i g i o u s o b j e c t " . P r e v i o u s l y , s . 2 0 5 ( 6 ) ( b ) had bazaars  the  l o t t e r i e s w i t h c e r t a i n enumerated e x c e p t i o n s  c o u l d be conducted a t any  to  Code,  soon a f t e r the applied  Harper. In proposed  Criminal  been Code  i n Quebec i n the wake 1894, to  l o t t e r i e s r e c e i v e d f i r s t reading,(89) but  a Criminal  prohibit i t d i d not  the  Code art  proceed  87 The o n l y major change t h a t o c c u r r e d was i n r e l a t i o n t o b e t t i n g on horse r a c e s , the i n v e n t i o n o f the t o t a l i s e r and the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f on-track, p a r i - m u t u e l b e t t i n g : S.C. 1910, c.10, s.3; S.C. 1913, c.13, s.13; S.C. 1920, c.43, s.6; S.C. 1922, c.16, ss.12 and 13; S.C. 1923, c.41, s s . 3,5 and 6. 88 S.C.  1900,  C.46,  s.3.  89 Canada. House of Commons, Debates 4th Sess. 7th Pari.(1894) V o l . I, p.364-5. T h i s B i l l a l s o proposed t o  38  any  further  in  the  legislative  p a r l i a m e n t a r y debates i n May, to  the  government  lotteries  in  promotion  of  responded  as  Montreal a r t . The  that  this  to  process.  1899, its  a q u e s t i o n was  intention  disguised  as  Art  enacted  i n the  lotteries  C o d e was  to  respond  S i r Wilfred  problem  be  dealt and  were  prohibited,  but  at  the  Quebec  i s confirmed  by  a r t l o t t e r i e s was the  fact that,  A c t , 1900.(90  same time,  1906,  f u r t h e r amended t o p r o v i d e t h a t the p r o h i b i t i o n of d i d not  in  which were t o  directed in  the  with  c l a r i f i e d v i s - a - v i s church r a f f l e s . That the p r o h i b i t i o n of  to  Laurier  C r i m i n a l C o d e( A m e n d m e n t )  of the  the  for  Prime M i n i s t e r , would  during directed  associations  amendments which were then i n p r e p a r a t i o n be  Then,  the  thrust  mainly  at  s.205  was  lotteries  apply t o "the A r t Union of London, Great B r i t a i n , or  Art  Union  of  Ireland",(91)  bodies  which  functioned  almost e x c l u s i v e l y i n E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n g Canada. In the sections  r e v i s i o n of the  were l e f t  change was opposed  1906  to  the the  C r i m i n a l C o d e ,  l a r g e l y untouched. The  appearance of the simple  "lottery",  p r o h i b i t "church r a f f l e s and s.205(6)(b)".  term in  the  most s i g n i f i c a n t  " l o t t e r y scheme", the  gaming  side-headings  as of  l o t t e r i e s p e r m i t t e d under  90 Canada. House o f Commons, Debates 4th Sess. (1899) V o l . 1 , p.2323.  8th.Pari.  91 S.C. 1906, c.6. T h i s focus on Quebec i s a l s o evidenced by the d e l e t i o n i n 1901 of the e x c e p t i o n from the l o t t e r y p r o h i b i t i o n f o r "the C r e d i t F o n c i e r du Bas-Canada, or the C r e d i t F o n c i e r Franco-Canadien": S.C. 1901, c.42.  39  s.236  (formerly  extremely 1969,  s.205).  important  This  expression  i n Canadian  was  to  law, p a r t i c u l a r l y  become after  and was u l t i m a t e l y i n t e r p r e t e d t o encompass n o t o n l y  lotteries, blackjack scope  but a l s o  other  and r o u l e t t e .  of the so-called  games o f chance  Thus,  as e a r l y  "lottery  such  as  section"  as bingo,  1922,(92) t h e  of the Criminal  Code was broadened i n scope t o p e n a l i z e anyone who d i s p o s e s o f any goods, wares o r merchandise by any game or mode o f chance o r mixed chance and s k i l l i n which the contestant o r competitor pays money o r o t h e r valuable consideration; or who induces any person t o stake o r hazard any money o r o t h e r v a l u a b l e p r o p e r t y o r t h i n g on t h e r e s u l t o f any d i c e game, s h e l l game, punch board, c o i n t a b l e o r on the o p e r a t i o n o f any wheel o f f o r t u n e . T h i s amendment was i t s e l f soon r e v i s e d t o a l l o w many o f the  games p r o s c r i b e d  fairs  or  introduced advised it,  t h e r e i n t o be p l a y e d  exhibitions.(93)  When  proviso  was  first  i n t h e House o f Commons, t h e M i n i s t e r o f J u s t i c e  that  t h e Department o f A g r i c u l t u r e had recommended  b e l i e v i n g i t t o be necessary  exhibitions  this  at agricultural  were  t o survive  i f agricultural  financially.  These  f a i r s and fairs  and  92 S.C. 1922, C.16, S . l l . 93 S.C. 1925, c.38, s.4 added a p r o v i s o t o s.236(1) t h a t t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f these two paragraphs d i d not apply t o a g r i c u l t u r a l f a i r s o r e x h i b i t i o n s " i n s o f a r as they do n o t r e l a t e t o any d i c e game, s h e l l game, punch board o r c o i n t a b l e " . In other words, d i s p o s i n g o f goods e t c . by games o f chance i n which t h e competitor pays money t o e n t e r , and s t a k i n g money on a wheel o f f o r t u n e were p e r m i t t e d a t such f a i r s and e x h i b i t i o n s .  40  exhibitions  were  maintenance  seen  of  recommendation  t o be c r u c i a l  interest  passed  into  i n t h e development and  i n  agriculture.(94)  l a w i n 1925 and  This  remains  i n  effect.(95) During a  t h e economic  re-examination  depression  of the desirability  Canada.(96)  I n some q u a r t e r s ,  source  revenue  of  deprived  social  legalization municipal advocated meeting  level,  lottery  t h e mayors  city  council  the provincial  lottery  t o benefit  lotteries  i n  the  t o help  of Ontario  government  94 C a n a d a . H o u s e o f Commons, (1925) V o l . V , p. 4204.  financially f o r  Mayor  of  their At the  Montreal  t h e unemployed  i n 1929, and i n  unanimously  had  other  potential  o f government.  adopted  t o lobby  t h e unemployed.(97)  Quebec  lotteries i n  pressure  a l l levels  t h e r e was  seen as a  and  and  f o r example,  national  with  Montreal's urging  from  of state  t h e y were  f o r hospitals programs,  came  a  o f t h e 1930s,  never  a  at a 1933,  resolution  Ottawa  f o r a  The p o p u l a r i t y  really  abated,  of the  Debates 4 t h Sess. 1 4 t h P a r i .  9 5 C r i m i n a l Code o f Canada, R . S . C .  1 9 8 5 , s.206(3) a n d  s.207(1) (c) . 96 A s i m i l a r r e - e v a l u a t i o n t o o k p l a c e i n B r i t a i n , i n l i g h t o f t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f t h e famous I r i s h S w e e p s t a k e s i n 1 9 3 0 : Great B r i t a i n Royal Commission on L o t t e r i e s etc.Report (London: H.M.S.O.,1932). The R o y a l C o m m i s s i o n u l t i m a t e l y recommended a g a i n s t r e i n s t a t i n g s t a t e l o t t e r i e s . I n t h e United States, beginning i nt h eDepression and continuing d u r i n g t h e Second W o r l d War, f e d e r a l a n d s t a t e l o t t e r y b i l l s began t o be i n t r o d u c e d i nCongress and t h e s t a t e l e g i s l a t u r e s : W e i n s t e i n a n d D e i t c h , s u p r a f n . 49 a t 1 4 . 97  Labrosse,  supra  f n . 7 a t 108, 110.  41  prohibitions call  but the  f o r a s t a t e l o t t e r y a l s o came from o t h e r r e g i o n s o f t h e  country. in  i n t h e C r i m i n a l Code n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g ,  In Vancouver, f o r i n s t a n c e , a p l e b i s c i t e was h e l d  1932 on t h e q u e s t i o n Are you i n favour o f l e g a l i z e d sweepstakes, t o be operated under t h e d i r e c t control of the B r i t i s h Columbia government f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f h o s p i t a l s w i t h i n the p r o v i n c e ?  The v o t e was 25,735 t o 9,777 i n favour o f such a l o t t e r y . During introduce  the early legislation  form o f l o t t e r y ) bills  1930s t h e r e were s e v e r a l attempts t o authorizing hospital  i n Canada by t h e f a i r l y  i n t r o d u c e d i n t h e Senate, r a t h e r than  Commons.  The  first,  House; t h e second,in  i n 1931, was  sweepstakes  unusual  i t was s h e l v e d i n d e f i n i t e l y ; t h e t h i r d ,  route of  i n t h e House o f  r e j e c t e d by  1933, progressed  (a  t h e Upper  t o t h e Commons where i n 1934, met w i t h a  s i m i l a r f a t e , but i t was d i s c u s s e d e x t e n s i v e l y i n t h e House of  Commons b e f o r e i t t o o was allowed t o lapse.(98) T h i s was t h e most e x t e n s i v e p u b l i c debate on l o t t e r i e s  in  Canada  up t o t h a t  examination.  The  point  Prime  and i s t h e r e f o r e worth  Minister,  t h e Hon.  R.B.  close Bennett  p e r m i t t e d government members a f r e e vote, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r 98 The chronology o f these b i l l s and t h e i r p r o g r e s s through P a r l i a m e n t i s d i s c u s s e d e x t e n s i v e l y i n t h e debates i n t h e House o f Commons: Debates (1934) 5th Sess. 17th P a r i . V o l . I I , p. 2164 and V o l . I l l , pp. 2119 and 3277-3323. A p r i v a t e member's b i l l t o amend t h e C r i m i n a l Code t o permit p r o v i n c e s to conduct l o t t e r i e s f o r " e d u c a t i o n a l o r p u b l i c c h a r i t a b l e purposes" was a l s o i n t r o d u c e d i n t h e Commons i n 1934, b u t i t f a i l e d t o r e c e i v e second r e a d i n g : V o l . I l l , pp 3476-77.  42  individual  views,  and s e t a s i d e  a day, May  22, 1934, f o r  d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e H o s p i t a l Sweepstakes B i l l .  As one o f t h e  Members o f Parliament p o i n t e d out, however, t h i s arrangement e f f e c t i v e l y gave t h e House "an o p p o r t u n i t y t o pronounce not so much on every  detail  of t h i s b i l l  as on t h e q u e s t i o n o f  l o t t e r i e s i n general."(99) The  purpose  of the B i l l  itself  was  t o empower t h e  a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l o f any p r o v i n c e t o a u t h o r i z e a committee t o conduct  sweepstakes o r l o t t e r i e s w i t h i n t h e p r o v i n c e f o r t h e  b e n e f i t o f h o s p i t a l s . The most v o c a l support  f o r the B i l l i n  the House came from Quebec, where t h e p r o v i n c i a l  government  had  provincial  r e c e n t l y enacted  lottery,  contingent  legislation  authorizing a  on complementary  federal  action,(100)  and a l s o from B r i t i s h Columbia. Advocates and c r i t i c s o f t h e Bill  frequently  relied  very  fiscal  malleability  o f t h e i s s u e . These same arguments were t o be i n t h e 1950s and 1960s,  -  arguments  moral,  again  and  similar  historical,  invoked  social  on  indicating  but with  the  different  results. Those generally an  i n favour dismissed  irrelevant  of the h o s p i t a l  sweepstakes  a s s e r t i o n s o f gambling's  proposal  immorality  i s s u e : p u b l i c o p i n i o n was c e r t a i n l y  as  divided  99 I b i d a t 3295 (Hon. F. R i n f r e t ) . 100 An A c t t o A u t h o r i z e t h e O r g a n i z a t i o n o f a L o t t e r y f o r E d u c a t i o n a l and P u b l i c Purposes S.Q. 1934, c. 6. T h i s A c t was never proclaimed i n t o f o r c e .  43  and  legislation  other.  The  was not going t o cure t h i s one way o r t h e  existing  prohibitory  law  was  ineffective.  L o t t e r i e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r e i g n l o t t e r i e s such as t h e I r i s h Sweepstakes s t i l l  thrived  legalization  the  stringent respect  of  controls f o r the  i n Canada, a l b e i t i l l i c i t l y .  domestic  sweepstakes  as t h e same time law.  The  failed  would  as i t would experiment  The  impose preserve  with  the  p r o h i b i t i o n o f l i q u o r and t h e p o l i c y o f s t a t e c o n t r o l which replaced  i t was  cited  approvingly  by those  espousing t h e  sweepstakes' cause. L o t t e r i e s i n a i d o f h o s p i t a l s would do much t o m i t i g a t e the e f f e c t s o f t h e Depression, i t was argued. I t would be a "voluntary further  t a x " i n an economy  compulsory  taxation.  that  could  A t t h e same  n o t absorb time,  any  i t would  remove t h e c l a s s b a r r i e r s t o l e g a l gambling pastimes:(101) A l o t t e r y i s t o t h e o r d i n a r y c i t i z e n what horse r a c i n g i s t o s o c i e t y . . . S p e c u l a t o r s have t h e s t o c k markets and exchanges f o r gambling i n s t o c k s and shares. These r e s o r t s a r e not a v a i l a b l e t o t h e p l a i n , every day, c i t i z e n ... i t i s harsh d i s c r i m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e day l a b o u r e r on t h e farm, f o r e s t , mine, o r h i g h seas, i s the o n l y one who i s t o be l e g i s l a t e d out o f t h e opportunity f o r indulging in this mild form o f gambling. It  was a l s o p o i n t e d  out t h a t  l o t t e r i e s had a l o n g  in  B r i t a i n and Europe and were e n t h u s i a s t i c a l l y supported by  the c i t i z e n r y o f many c o u n t r i e s ,  pedigree  world wide.  101 Canada. House o f Commons, Debates, supra f n . 96 a t 327879 (J.A. F r a s e r ) .  44  Among  the  supporters  were those  who  lotteries  should  of  the  Bill  from  thought t h a t i t d i d not not  be  restricted  Quebec,  go  f a r enough; t h a t  to  the  support  h o s p i t a l s and t h a t t h e r e should be a n a t i o n a l l o t t e r y than  a  number of  provincial  sweepstakes.  Quebec's  d e s i r e f o r some form o f s t a t e - r u n l o t t e r y was f a c t o r i n the p a r l i a m e n t a r y  there  an  rather evident  influential  debate, but on both s i d e s o f the  i s s u e . A Member r e p r e s e n t i n g an O n t a r i o r i d i n g d e s c r i b e d r e s u l t i n g t e n s i o n as  of  the  follows:(102)  The b i l l under d i s c u s s i o n i s important a l s o f o r the reason t h a t i t comes w i t h e n d o r s a t i o n o f one o f the p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t u r e s . N a t u r a l l y , when a b i l l comes so endorsed i t i s incumbent upon [us] t o pay due c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o the recommendations of t h a t body. T h i s i s a c o n f e d e r a t i o n of p r o v i n c e s and the a c t i o n o f the p r o v i n c e must of n e c e s s i t y be g i v e n c o n s i d e r a t i o n . When a province i n d i c a t e s i t s d e s i r e to deal with questions t h a t i t b e l i e v e s t o be e n t i r e l y i n i t s own interests, we have a r i g h t , i f the u n i t y o f c o n f e d e r a t i o n i s t o be preserved, t o pay a t t e n t i o n t o i t s demand. On the o t h e r hand, if we are to preserve harmony in our c o n f e d e r a t i o n , no one p r o v i n c e has a r i g h t t o f o r c e upon the dominion a c o n d i t i o n of t h i n g s that i s abhorrent t o a g r e a t number of i t s c i t i z e n s .... Among the recent  opponents t o the  decision  of  a  Royal  Bill  i t i s clear that  Commission  r e i n s t a t e l o t t e r i e s i n t h a t country was than  public  Anglican  and  grounds was historical abolition 102  sentiment United  in  Churches  also cited. experience in  to  Britain  with  The  opposition  the  proposal  lotteries  and  countries.  It  ( J . L . Brown).  not  to  much more p e r s u a s i v e  Repeated r e f e r e n c e was  Enlightened'  I b i d a t 3310  Quebec.  in  the  on  the moral  made t o  their was  of  the  eventual  pointed  out  45  that,  i n the  case  of  the  popular  Irish  Sweepstakes,  less  than 20 per cent o f the t o t a l monies r e c e i v e d a c t u a l l y found its  way  i n t o the h o s p i t a l s . One  Canadian lottery highly  socialism, might be  B i l l put  in  ultra the  but  tax  out  i t would  burden  federal province  the  by  the S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e . In h i s view, i t f e d e r a l Parliament  t o permit  certain  jurisdiction  over  lotteries  of the  B r i t i s h N o  hospitals  in  the  the m i n i s t e r c o u l d f i n d no a u t h o r i t y f o r the  government to  a  a l s o a t e c h n i c a l , l e g a l argument a g a i n s t  A c t vested and  the  a l s o be  falling  proposed manner. S e c t i o n 9 2 ( 7 )  provinces,  that  l e a s t a b l e t o pay.(103)  v i r e s the  A m e r i c a  for  the  pointed  f a t h e r s of  the  forward  with  tax,  founding  on  of those  There was  Woodsworth  a voluntary  r e g r e s s i v e one,  shoulders  was  J.S.  o f the  create  to a  empower  the  attorney  sweepstakes committee  provincial  purposes.  general to  Nothing  raise  less  of  a  money  than  an  amendment t o the C r i m i n a l C o d e would s u f f i c e . ( 1 0 4 ) The  opponents  of  the  Bill  succeeded  in  stalling  its  second r e a d i n g , which e f f e c t i v e l y k i l l e d the p r o p o s a l . Three subsequent  103  attempts  to  get  federal  authorization  for  I b i d a t 3298 (J.S. Woodsworth).  104 I b i d a t 3289 (Hon. C H . Cahan). The p r i v a t e member's b i l l which was i n t r o d u c e d i n the House of Commons c o n c u r r e n t l y w i t h the Sweepstakes B i l l and which proposed t o amend the C r i m i n a l C o d e i n a manner c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e ' s l e g a l o p i n i o n , d i d not r e c e i v e second r e a d i n g : s u p r a f n . 96.  46  lotteries  i n the  l a t e 1930s a l s o met  C r i m i n a l Code was provide  that  a  s u c c e s s f u l l y amended i n 1938,  place  occupied o r used by nor  any  an  a  as an end It  took  place  i n i t s e l f , was was  not  a  health.(107)  the  a  club"  c h a r i t a b l e or r e l i g i o u s  Without  a  the  political  lottery  federal  other  an  end  socializing,  that  government of  provincial  to  In  of  words, such  rather  as  than  permitted.  1950 as  means  simple  t o be  until  re-emerged  symbolically,  or  as  to  "while  bona f i d e s o c i a l  r e l i g i o u s object".(106)  fund-raising  lotteries  creating  or  which  charitable  however,  common gaming house  incorporated  The  " i f the proceeds are used f o r the b e n e f i t  charitable  gambling  dead  i s not  i f i t i s " o c c a s i o n a l l y " used by  organizations,  w i t h d e f e a t . (105)  legalization issue.  Quebec enacted to  support  co-operation,  Somewhat legislation  education it  of  and  remained  a  letter.  105 1st Reading March 16, 1938; P.M. Mackenzie King k i l l e d another b i l l ; March, 1939, V. M a l l e t t e i n t r o d u c e d a p r i v a t e member's b i l l . These p r o p o s a l s are c i t e d i n Labrosse, supra f n . 7 a t 121. 106 S.C. 1938, c.44, s.12. The s t a t e d aim o f t h i s p r o v i s i o n was t o r a t i o n a l i z e the d e f i n i t i o n of a common gaming house w i t h the exemption g i v e n t o r a f f l e s f o r a c h a r i t a b l e o r r e l i g i o u s o b j e c t found i n what was then s.236(6)(b) o f the Code: Canada. House o f Commons Debates (1938) V o l . IV, p.4316. 107 An Act t o Promote the D i f f u s i o n o f E d u c a t i o n and the P r o t e c t i o n o f Health, S.Q. 1950, c.14. During the e a r l y 1940s, s e v e r a l p r o v i n c e s had enacted l e g i s l a t i o n t o d e a l w i t h p e r c e i v e d problems w i t h i n p r o v i n c i a l boundaries r e l a t i n g t o gambling, e.g. The Gaming and B e t t i n g Act o f O n t a r i o , S.O. 1942, c.19 and the A l b e r t a S l o t Machine A c t , R.S.A., 1942, c.333, but i t was s t r u c k down by the c o u r t s as  47  R e v i s i o n and R e c o n s i d e r a t i o n E a r l y i n 1949, t h e government o f t h e day a u t h o r i z e d t h e examination means  and study  o f a Royal  ambiguities,  of the Criminal  Commission  adopt  inconsistencies,  whose  uniform  re-arrange  Code  mandate  o f Canada by was  language,  provisions  to revise eliminate  and P a r t s ,  simplify  and make t h e Code exhaustive.(108) T h i s was t h e f i r s t  time,  s i n c e 1892, t h a t t h e whole body o f Canada's c r i m i n a l law was t o be s u b j e c t t o s y s t e m a t i c  study. By t h a t p o i n t , t h e gaming  s e c t i o n s o f t h e Code, l i k e many o f i t s o t h e r p r o v i s i o n s , had been a l t e r e d r e p e a t e d l y exigencies  i n a piece-meal f a s h i o n t o meet t h e  o f p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n s and had been  subjected  t o v a r y i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s by t h e j u d i c i a r y . R a t i o n a l i z a t i o n was a d e s i r a b l e g o a l . The report  Criminal in  Law R e v i s i o n  1952,(109)  recommendations  was  and  passed  Commissioners  legislation in  issued  based  1954.(110)  on  Regarding  their their the  b e i n g u l t r a v i r e s . See i n f r a , Chapter Four f o r a more d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n o f these measures. 108 Canada. O r d e r - i n - C o u n c i l P.C. 527 (3/2/1949) ; O r d e r - i n C o u n c i l P.C. 68/4633 (26/9/1950). 109 Canada. Royal Commission on t h e R e v i s i o n o f t h e C r i m i n a l Code, Report (Ottawa, 1952). 110 S.C. 1953-54, c.51. One o f t h e most s i g n i f i c a n t changes o f t h i s r e v i s i o n was t h e a b o l i t i o n o f a l l common law o f f e n c e s , except contempt o f c o u r t . Those common law o f f e n c e s which were thought t o be worth p r e s e r v i n g were s p e c i f i c a l l y amalgamated i n t o t h e C r i m i n a l Code.  48  gaming p r o v i s i o n s  o f t h e Code, however, t h i s  exercise  was  without any immediate impact. The Commissioners chose n o t t o d e a l w i t h them, o f f e r i n g t h i s explanation:(111) Your Commissioners have c o n s i d e r e d t h e gaming s e c t i o n s o f t h e Code. While we a r e o f t h e o p i n i o n t h a t these s e c t i o n s c o n t a i n c e r t a i n i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s and anomalies we have suggested no s u b s t a n t i v e changes because o f t h e c o n t r o v e r s i a l nature o f t h e matters i n v o l v e d . Similarly, consider chose  the  t h e proposed  t o s e t aside  particular), and  Special  along  which  was  revisions to the Criminal  the issue  " o f such  should  paramount with  o f t h e Code. (112)  Commons i t s e l f ,  already  the  early  importance merely  that  also  they  questions could  and  as i n c i d e n t a l s " t o t h e  In t h e debates  t h e omission  gaming was u n c o n t r o v e r s i a l was  Code  to  w i t h t h e defence o f i n s a n i t y and c a p i t a l  n o t be d e a l t  revision  struck  (referring to lotteries i n  c o r p o r a l punishment, on t h e grounds t h a t t h e s e  were  111  Committee  i n t h e House o f  o f any r e v i s i o n s r e l a t i n g t o  as, by t h a t time, t h e government  p r o p o s i n g a s p e c i a l study o f l o t t e r i e s . ( 1 1 3 ) I n months  o f 1954 a  Parliamentary  Special  Joint  Supra f n 109 a t 16.  112 Canada. P a r l i a m e n t . House o f Commons.Special Committee on B i l l No. 93 "An A c t r e s p e c t i n g t h e C r i m i n a l Law e t c . " Minutes o f Proceedings and Evidence (Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1953) p. 297. 113 During t h e extremely b r i e f remarks on t h e r e l e v a n t gaming s e c t i o n s made i n t h e course o f p a r l i a m e n t a r y debate, i t was observed t h a t i t was o n l y t h e l o t t e r y p r o v i s i o n s which were p r o b l e m a t i c . Other forms o f gambling, such as " r o u l e t t e and f a n - t a n " were d i s m i s s e d as " u n d e s i r a b l e i n our c i v i l i z a t i o n " - Canada. House o f Commons Debates (1953-54) 1st Sess. 22d P a r i . V o l . I I p. 1030 (E.D. F u l t o n ) .  49  Committee was  s t r u c k t o examine the c r i m i n a l law r e l a t i n g t o  c a p i t a l punishment, c o r p o r a l punishment and l o t t e r i e s and t o make recommendations r e g a r d i n g i t s amendment. After  hearing  interested  parties  submissions -  church  from  a  wide  groups,  range  law  of  enforcement  officials,  e x h i b i t i o n boards,  e t c . - who  put forward v e r y s i m i l a r arguments t o those heard  in  the  Bill  p a r l i a m e n t a r y debates  i n 1934,  classify  and  lotteries.  being within  Hospital  similar The  games as  being  Committee viewed  Sweepstakes  i n o p e r a t i o n and  u s u a l l y arranged and p l a y e d by to  those  purposes.  Indeed,  clarified  "to  insure  was that  same  they were  because  not  they were  o r g a n i z a t i o n s having s i m i l a r  conducting it  i n the  bingo games as  i t s terms o f r e f e r e n c e because  dissimilar to lotteries  purposes  the  a d e c i s i o n , r a t h e r than a recommendation,  bingo  c a t e g o r y as  on  agencies  the Committee made s e v e r a l recommendations.  The f i r s t was to  t r a d e unions, s o c i a l  lotteries  recommended bingo  and  for  that  benevolent the  similar  law  be  games  be  s u b j e c t e d t o the same p r o h i b i t i o n s and c o n t r o l s as a p p l y t o lotteries".(114) Secondly, was  widespread  the Committee r e c o g n i z e d t h a t although t h e r e public  support  for  lotteries  and  bingos  operated f o r c h a r i t a b l e and benevolent purposes, they were , 114 Canada. Reports of the J o i n t Committee o f the Senate and House o f Commons on C a p i t a l Punishment, C o r p o r a l Punishment and L o t t e r i e s (Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1956) p a r a s . 1, 30.  50  more o f t e n than not,  being  the C r i m i n a l Code, e.g. and  had  not  found i t d i f f i c u l t  been  the  law  Accordingly,  t o enforce  Committee was relaxed making  in  and the  offered  for  This  the  caused two  absence  law  some r e s p e c t s ,  c l e a r which  of  problems:  kinds  relating and of  to  up  Special  in  would  become  easier  to  enforce  the  law  be  of  controls.  lotteries  tightened lotteries  the  face  contempt  effective  under what k i n d s o f c o n d i t i o n s , then, i n theory would  conditions  e x i s t i n g laws i n the  c h i e f recommendation o f  t h a t the  sale,  $50  " u n r e a l i s t i c " . ( 1 1 5 ) P o l i c i n g agencies  adverse p u b l i c o p i n i o n . for  i n v i o l a t i o n o f the terms of  the p r i z e s were worth more than  previously  which were found t o be  run  Joint  should  be  others.  By  legal  and  at l e a s t , i t  against  illegal  schemes:(116) The Committee t h e r e f o r e c o n s i d e r s t h a t the law should be amended w i t h t h r e e purposes i n view. F i r s t , the p r o h i b i t i o n s a g a i n s t l o t t e r i e s must be c l e a r l y s t a t e d ; second, the i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n the p r e s e n t law must be e l i m i n a t e d ; and t h i r d , the types o f l o t t e r i e s t o be permitted must be c l e a r l y d e f i n e d and subjected to e f f e c t i v e s u p e r v i s i o n and c o n t r o l . The implementation of t h i s p o l i c y w i l l r e s u l t i n the e f f e c t i v e p r o h i b i t i o n and r e s t r i c t i o n of s e v e r a l types of l o t t e r i e s now c a r r i e d on i n s p i t e of t h e i r dubious l e g a l i t y . I t w i l l a l s o r e s u l t i n some r e l a x a t i o n o f e x i s t i n g p r o h i b i t i o n s to permit adequate and workable control. It is p r e c i s e l y because the Committee has concluded t h a t the p r e s e n t p r o h i b i t o r y laws do not p r o t e c t the p u b l i c t h a t i t i s d i s p o s e d t o recommend some r e l a x a t i o n i n l i n e w i t h the same reforms i n t r o d u c e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o the c o n t r o l , s a l e and consumption of a l c o h o l i c beverages. P r o h i b i t i o n proved unworkable and l e d t o many s e r i o u s abuses; but the present system of licensing and c o n t r o l , which i s supported by the main body of p u b l i c 115  I b i d at para.  37.  116  I b i d a t para.  22.  51 o p i n i o n , has appears to enforcement.  worked have  s a t i s f a c t o r i l y and on the whole contributed to efficient law  A c c o r d i n g l y , the Committee advocated a s t r i c t inspection  system,  a d m i n i s t e r e d by  authority,  for charitable  a  l i c e n s i n g and  competent  provincial  and benevolent o r g a n i z a t i o n s  who  wished t o conduct a l o t t e r y . The f i n a l major recommendation put forward a t t h i s time was  that  was  not  public On  t h e r e should be no s t a t e felt  that  were  an  efficient  i n Canada. I t way  of  funds, and t h a t they would s e r v e no u s e f u l  the c o n t r a r y ,  proper  they  lotteries  role  of  the Committee the  state  to  considered that control  and  raising purpose.  i t was  regulate  the such  gambling a c t i v i t y as was p e r m i t t e d t o i t s c i t i z e n s under t h e law.  I t was  provide  highly  facilities  inappropriate for  gambling  f o r the s t a t e to  the  itself  public  and  to to  a c t i v e l y promote i t . ( 1 1 7 ) In regarding  essence, lotteries  the  recommendations  of  the  and bingo were r e l a t i v e l y  Committee  c a u t i o u s and  c o n s e r v a t i v e . They envisaged a modest r e l a x a t i o n o f one form of  gambling  which  was  in line  with  the  scheme  that  had  e x i s t e d i n Canada f o r almost a c e n t u r y . Quebec's d e s i r e f o r a provincial,  o r even a n a t i o n a l  lottery  f o r broad  social  purposes d i d not appear t o be even a remote p o s s i b i l i t y .  117 I b i d a t p a r a s . 23-25.  52  The Committee's r e p o r t on the c r i m i n a l law r e l a t i n g t o lotteries  met  provisions, process, until  with  which  remained  legislative  had on  been  the  silence.  untouched  s t a t u t e book,  by  The the  "warts  gaming revision  and a l l " ,  1969. The decade o f the 1960s, a p e r i o d o f t u r b u l e n c e  and t r a n s f o r m a t i o n f o r many a s p e c t s o f s o c i e t y , was t o see a radical  transformation  of  legal  Canada. The p r o c e s s by which t h i s be examined i n the next chapter.  status  of  change was  gambling achieved  in will  53 C H A P T E R T H E P r e l i m i n a r y  P R O C E S S  O F  T W O  D E C R I M I N A L I Z A T I O N  M a n o e u v r e s  Although  the  recommendations  of  the  Parliamentary  S p e c i a l J o i n t Committee t o amend the C r i m i n a l C o d e i n r e g a r d to  lotteries  impact, was  for  i t i s clear  considering  annual advisory  benevolent  meeting body  that,  i n 1960,  legislative of  the  purposes the  changes.  uniform  for co-ordinating  had  no  immediate  federal  government  In t h a t  law law  year,  at  commissioners,  reform  efforts  the the  across  Canada, a d r a f t r e v i s i o n o f the l o t t e r i e s p r o v i s i o n s o f the C o d e prepared  i n the  and  upon.(1)  commented  Justice,  E.D.  government was  Fulton  Department  of J u s t i c e  In February  l e t i t be  1961,  was  considered  then M i n i s t e r  known more w i d e l y t h a t  of the  s e r i o u s l y s t u d y i n g the i s s u e o f l o t t e r i e s . ( 2 )  Some f e d e r a l p o l i t i c i a n s were u n w i l l i n g t o w a i t f o r the government t o was  a steady  a c t , however. stream  Starting  of p r i v a t e  in early  member's b i l l s  1961,  there  relating  to  1 Canada. Commissioners on U n i f o r m i t y o f L e g i s l a t i o n . Proceedings o f the 42nd Annual Meeting (1960), p.43. The Commissioners c o n t i n u e d t o study Canada's gaming laws over the next few y e a r s . A committee was s t r u c k i n 1965 t o determine "whether t h e r e are areas o f the l o t t e r i e s problem in which the [ C r i m i n a l Law] S e c t i o n can be o f a s s i s t a n c e " : P r o c e e d i n g s o f the 47th Annual Meeting (1965) p. 44. The f o l l o w i n g year, the S e c t i o n c o n s i d e r e d t h i s Committee's r e p o r t and recommended a g a i n s t s t a t e l o t t e r i e s and o f f - t r a c k b e t t i n g : Proceedings o f the 48th Annual Meeting (1966) p. 32. 2 Canada. House o f Commons Debates 2099-2100.  (1960-61) V o l . I I , p.  54  lotteries  which  received  first  Commons. P r i v a t e members b i l l s , otherwise  supported  successful, political  but  by  they  in  u n l e s s they  the serve  the  keep  Commission  an  are  rarely  issue  i n the  " f o r the e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f a Sweepstakes  f o r the b e n e f i t o f h o s p i t a l s " i n February  was  introduced i n  1961. (3) T h i s b i l l proposed t h a t t h e  Sweepstakes Commission would use i t s i n i t i a l to  of  a r e adopted o r  government, to  House  arena.  The f i r s t b i l l ,  the House  do  reading  organize  and conduct  would be d i s t r i b u t e d  capital  a sweepstakes scheme whose  on a pro r a t a  profits  basis according  p o p u l a t i o n s o f the p r o v i n c e s . In o t h e r words,  grant  t o the  i t would be a  n a t i o n a l scheme. In 1962, t h e r e were two b i l l s , lottery(4)  and  one  level  "to provide  other  welfare  favouring  financial  purposes  versions  of t h i s  amendment  to  was  provincial  what  governments  then to  lotteries  at  the  provincial  assistance to h o s p i t a l s or f o r  under  Identical  one p r o p o s i n g a n a t i o n a l  provincial  latter s.179 operate  bill, of  jurisdiction".(5) a l l proposing  the  such  Code  an  to  allow  lotteries,  were  3 B i l l C-36 An A c t t o p r o v i d e f o r the E s t a b l i s h m e n t o f a H o s p i t a l Sweepstakes Board (1961). 4 B i l l C-36 An A c t t o P r o v i d e f o r a Canadian L o t t e r y 5 B i l l C-56, An A c t t o amend the C r i m i n a l Code L o t t e r i e s ) (1962).  (1962).  (Provincial  55  i n t r o d u c e d r e p e a t e d l y i n the House between 1963 A  slightly  different  version  of t h i s  bill,  and 1967.(6)  which  received  f i r s t r e a d i n g i n June, 1967, would have exempted from s.  179  "a l o t t e r y o r g a n i z e d and operated by a p r o v i n c i a l government for  the purpose o f p r o v i d i n g f o r the payment i n the p r o v i n c e  of  a d d i t i o n a l amounts w i t h r e s p e c t t o f a m i l y allowances  and  old  age p e n s i o n s . (7) The advent o f s o c i a l i z e d medicine  had  11  arguably  rendered  hospital  sweepstakes  somewhat  of  an  anomaly. Another proposed received  first  amendment t o the C r i m i n a l C o d e ,  reading i n successive years  from  which  1963-1967  was A n A c t t o a m e n d t h e C r i m i n a l C o d e ( R a f f l e s a n d B i n g o f o r C h a r i t a b l e P u r p o s e s ) , ( 8 )  the  aim  been the  implementation  of  the  Special  Committee.  1954  clear  of  Rather,  the  Joint  more  i t proposed  some o f the  contentious t o broaden  c h a r i t a b l e gaming and  raffles  possible  clubs  for  organizations funds  for  service as  well  charitable  as and  o f which  appears  recommendations  I t d i d , however,  issue  to  of  true  the e x i s t i n g  have of  steer  lotteries.  exemptions  for  a t church bazaars t o make i t and  similar  religious  community  organizations  religious  objects  service to  without  raise the  t h r e a t o f p r o s e c u t i o n . The e x p l a n a t i o n accompanying the b i l l 6 B i l l C-36 (1963); B i l l C-44 (1963); B i l l C-22 (1964); C-65 (1965); B i l l C-38 (1966) and B i l l C-43 (1967). 7 Bill  C-137, 2nd Sess. 27th P a r i .  Bill  (1967).  8 B i l l C-73 (1963); B i l l C-65 (1964); B i l l C-15 C-84 (1966) and B i l l C-109 (1967).  (1965);  Bill  56  s t a t e d t h a t the e x i s t i n g exemptions were too narrow and the law was  unevenly a p p l i e d a c r o s s  the  that  country:(9)  In some p a r t s of Canada [ s e r v i c e c l u b s , community s e r v i c e and r e l i g i o u s organizations] can carry on r a f f l e s and bingos not only on a r e g u l a r b a s i s i f d e s i r e d , but a l s o on a s c a l e s u f f i c i e n t t o meet the f i n a n c i a l needs f o r which they are h e l d , without any i n t e r f e r e n c e by l o c a l law enforcement a u t h o r i t i e s who appear t o pay no a t t e n t i o n t o the c l e a r p r o v i s i o n s of the C r i m i n a l Code ... At the same time o t h e r such groups . .. are i n e f f e c t not p e r m i t t e d t o c a r r y out t h i s v e r y same type of f u n d - r a i s i n g a c t i v i t y by l o c a l law enforcement a u t h o r i t i e s who consider themselves o b l i g e d t o e n f o r c e the p r o v i s i o n s o f the C r i m i n a l Code as they now stand i n t h e i r e n t i r e t y . [ T h i s b i l l ] i s designed t o e l i m i n a t e t h i s u n f a i r s i t u a t i o n and t o ensure t h a t a l l such groups are t r e a t e d on a b a s i s of e q u a l i t y t h a t w i l l permit them t o h o l d r a f f l e s and bingos i n a manner and on a s c a l e s u f f i c i e n t f o r the c h a r i t a b l e purposes i n t e n d e d . In the i n 1969,  f e d e r a l l e g i s l a t i o n t h a t was  ideas  enacted  from both of these s e r i e s o f p r i v a t e members'  b i l l s would be Another  ultimately  incorporated. development  which  doubtless  had  great  s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r the l o t t e r y debate, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n Canada, was eastern  the  region  legislature which was initial  in  advent of of  the  New  first  revenues  legalized lotteries  United  Hampshire  operated fell  the  short  States.  In  authorized following of  official  i n the  1963 a  eastern  the  state  year.(10)  north state  lottery Although  expectations,  s t a r t e d a t r e n d which was  t o spread through v i r t u a l l y  s t a t e i n the union i n the  following years.  it  every  Even i f Canadians  9 B i l l C-73,  1st Sess. 26th P a r i . (1963), E x p l a n a t o r y Notes.  10 N.H.  S t a t . Ann.  Rev.  # 284:2 (1985).  57  c o u l d not p a t r o n i z e a p r o v i n c i a l o r n a t i o n a l l o t t e r y , t o the American market was Particularly  access  o f t e n j u s t a s h o r t d r i v e away. pressure  at  institution  of  l o t t e r i e s . Montreal i n p a r t i c u l a r , i n the second h a l f o f  the  1960s was  was  provincial  facing  and  i n Quebec t h e r e  municipal  confronted  the  prospect  levels  federal  lotteries,  of  even  government the  the  general  city  by  become  eligible  monthly to  was  of  the  f o r Expo ones  i n 1976. to  for  '67  and  the  Olympic  Although by  act  on  Montreal  the  issue  i n s t i t u t e d a "voluntary  tax":  become v o l u n t a r y  in  chose  of  take  contributions  t a x p a y e r s of  of a  $2  and  monthly  a barely  disguised  the  thereby draw  form of s i l v e r i n g o t s . I t was  t h i s was  1968,  to  participate  v a l u a b l e p r i z e s i n the that  for  larger  begun  hands and  p u b l i c could  making  recognized  had  municipality  matters i n t o i t s own  growing  w i t h huge b i l l s  Games which were t o be h e l d t h e r e the  was  lottery  for  widely and  it  e v e n t u a l l y s t r u c k down by the Supreme Court o f Canada as  being  i n contravention  of  the  p r o h i b i t i o n of  lotteries  in  the C r i m i n a l C o d e . ( 1 1 ) The  e n t i r e i s s u e of  gambling had  a l s o been  at l e n g t h by a commission of i n q u i r y i n t o the  considered  administration  11 C i t y o f M o n t r e a l v . A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l o f Q u e b e c , S . C . R . 332. By the time t h i s d e c i s i o n was i s s u e d , l a t e i n 1969, i t had been overtaken by amendments t o the C r i m i n a l C o d e permitting state l o t t e r i e s .  [1970  58  of  justice  Polls  on c r i m i n a l  conducted  and penal  matters  f o r t h e commission  indicated  support f o r t h e idea o f a s t a t e l o t t e r y cautioned opinion  i n Quebec.(12)  and t h e commission  o f t h e e v i l s which can r e s u l t when law and p u b l i c  a r e out o f step.(13) I t concluded t h a t  prohibit  widespread  i t , the state  should  finance  use  rather  gambling's  "essential  than  "enormous  resources"  to  social  reforms".  Accordingly,  t h e f o l l o w i n g recommendation was issued:(14)  [G]ambling must be s o c i a l i z e d . By t h a t we mean t h a t t h e S t a t e a u t h o r i z e s gambling, but o r g a n i z e s i t f o r i t s own b e n e f i t and without i n t e r m e d i a r i e s . Consequently t h e r e i s no i s s u i n g o f p e r m i t s o r l i c e n c e s i n favour o f p r i v a t e e n t e r p r i s e . T h i s appears t o us t o be t h e o n l y r e a l i s t i c attitude. Before  this  introduced  report  was  issued,  the  federal  government  l e g i s l a t i o n which was fundamentally t o a l t e r t h e  l e g a l s t a t u s o f c e r t a i n forms o f gambling i n Canada.  Government Late  Proposals i n 1967, t h e M i n i s t e r  of J u s t i c e  i n the L i b e r a l  government o f Prime M i n i s t e r L e s t e r Pearson, P i e r r e Trudeau introduced  into  amend s e v e r a l the  t h e House  aspects  decriminalization  o f Commons  an omnibus  bill  of the Criminal  Code. They  included  o f , i . e . t h e removal  of  to  criminal  12 Quebec. Commission o f I n q u i r y i n t o t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f J u s t i c e e t c . Crime. J u s t i c e and S o c i e t y . V o l . 3: Crime i n Quebec - Organized Crime (Quebec C i t y : 1969). 13 I b i d a t 74-75. 14 I b i d a t 87.  59  sanctions  from,  abortion,  homosexual p r a c t i c e s  schemes,  under  certain  circumstances.(15)  proposed allow  inter  state  provincial along  lotteries  the l i n e s in  exemption  by  the  continuation  also  under  179A which  would  of charity  of  fairs  and  licence.  or  gaming Special  the  existing  exhibitions  f o r gaming  provincial  made c l e a r  C-195  the Parliamentary  o f a new exemption  o f amusement  Bill  of the federal  t h e broadening  f o r gaming a t a g r i c u l t u r a l  legislation as  1954,  section  a t the option  suggested  the creation  places  t o introduce  governments,  Committee  and  alia  and l o t t e r y  at  public  This  draft  t h a t t h e term " l o t t e r y  scheme"  i t was used i n t h e Code was not t o be r e s t r i c t e d t o t r u e  l o t t e r i e s , b u t encompassed any "game", t h a t i s , any game o f chance o r mixed chance and s k i l l . Although dissolved  Bill  f o r the  reintroduced that  this  year,  leadership  was abandoned  when P a r l i a m e n t  general  election  in  in a virtually  identical  form  after of  the Liberals  Pierre  were  Trudeau.  schemes,  i t represented  existing  law:  a  relation  radical  Criminal prohibition 15  Bill  laws to  be  generally met  with  to  significant  conform a  under t h e  departure  gambling, b u t i n a r a t h e r unique and i n d i r e c t to a  sanction,  C-195, 2nd Sess., 27th P a r i . , 1967.  i t was  i n December o f  re-elected  In  i t decriminalized  1968,  was  lottery  from  the  forms  of  fashion. pattern with  of a  legally  60  r e c o g n i z e d excuses and j u s t i f i c a t i o n s taken i n t o account. In its  most  straightforward  form,  r e s u l t i n the t o t a l withdrawal activity.  T h i s was  decriminalization  would  o f the law from the t a r g e t e d  the o p t i o n chosen  by  the government f o r  homosexual a c t s between c o n s e n t i n g a d u l t s , i t s p o l i c y o f keeping the s t a t e  x  consistent  with  o u t o f the bedrooms o f the  n a t i o n ' . Regarding l o t t e r i e s and r e l a t e d games, however, the prohibition  and  C o d e , but  they  authorized  by  provincial proposed  related would  the  s a n c t i o n s were  not  federal  governments  here was  apply  i f those  government  in  the  the a c t i v i t y was  by o t h e r forms o f l e g a l  controls.  Turner  sponsor,  described  the  the  Minister  proposed  of  the were  i n s t a n c e , and The  policy  a "licensing  The c r i m i n a l law was  bill's  in  activities  others.(16)  under s t a t e permit.(17)  The  remain  i n one  what has been termed  of d e c r i m i n a l i z a t i o n because  to  t o be  model" allowed  t o be r e p l a c e d  Justice,  amendments  John  concerning  16 There are o n l y two remotely s i m i l a r p r o v i s i o n s : what i s now s . 8 3 o f the C r i m i n a l C o d e , R.S.C. 1985, c.C-46, which exempts p r o v i n c i a l l y a u t h o r i z e d boxing matches from the p r o h i b i t i o n o f p r i z e f i g h t s ; and s . 2 8 7 made l e g a l a b o r t i o n s c o n t i n g e n t upon the approval of p r o v i n c i a l l y appointed and s u p e r v i s e d t h e r a p e u t i c a b o r t i o n committees. T h i s p r o v i s i o n was found t o contravene the C a n a d i a n C h a r t e r o f R i g h t s a F r e e d o m s , s . 7 and t o be of no f o r c e and e f f e c t i n R . v . M o r g e n t a l e r e ta l . , (1988), 37 C.C.C.(3d) 449 ( S . C . C ) . 17 S k o l n i c k and Dombrink, "The L e g a l i z a t i o n of Deviance", (1978) 16 C r i m i n o l o g y 193 a t 200. See i n f r a Chapter S i x f o r a more d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n of the d i f f e r e n t models of decriminalization.  61  lotteries  as  incorporating  "a  fundamentally  new  approach":(18) [T]he amount and nature o f gaming which w i l l be p e r m i t t e d w i l l depend t o a c o n s i d e r a b l e extent on t h e policy of p r o v i n c i a l authorities i n issuing ...licences ...The a t t i t u d e towards l o t t e r i e s i n Canada v a r i e s i n v a r i o u s p a r t s o f t h e country. The proposed amendment w i l l p r o v i d e t o an a p p r e c i a b l e degree, f o r r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h a t f a c t . The nature o f t h e proposed amendments might be d e s c r i b e d as l o c a l o p t i o n w i t h i n p r e s c r i b e d l i m i t s s e t out i n t h e Code. Indeed,  the o f f i c i a l  justification  f o r t h e new  provisions  was premised almost e x c l u s i v e l y on t h e n o t i o n o f t h e l a c k o f a n a t i o n a l consensus r e g a r d i n g  l o t t e r y schemes. Both i n t h e  House  and i n Committee  hearings,  these  changes r e s u l t e d  from  the p r o v i n c e s  the Minister  denied  p r o v i n c i a l pressure,  were r e p o r t e d t o be i n favour  that  although  o f them:(19)  To t h e b e s t o f our knowledge ... we have r e c e i v e d no formal submissions either f o r or against this p a r t i c u l a r p r o v i s i o n from any p r o v i n c i a l government ... We a r e a s s e s s i n g p u b l i c o p i n i o n i n t h i s c o u n t r y . We f e e l t h a t p u b l i c o p i n i o n i s not unanimous about i t and t h a t i t might vary from r e g i o n t o r e g i o n . We a r e , t h e r e f o r e , l e a v i n g i t t o t h e r e g i o n s , as t h a t p u b l i c opinion may be interpreted by t h e i r provincial governments t h a t t h e i r p r o v i n c i a l A t t o r n e y s General have c o n t r o l over whether o r not t h e r e should be l o t t e r i e s p e r m i t t e d w i t h i n p r o v i n c i a l boundaries. S t r i c t l y speaking, t h i s may have been t r u e - t h a t o f t h e p r o v i n c i a l governments had made a formal at  that  precise  time  requesting  authorization  none  submission of a  state  18 Canada. House o f Commons Debates. 1 s t Sess. 28th P a r i . (1968-69) p. 4721. 19 e.g. Canada. Proceedings o f House o f Commons Standing Committee on J u s t i c e and Legal A f f a i r s . 1 s t Sess. 28th P a r i . (1968-69) p.331.  62  lottery.  Nonetheless,  as  has  been  indicated,  pressure  had  been b u i l d i n g i n Quebec f o r some time f o r the p r o v i n c e t o  be  given  of  the  power  to  conduct  provincial  pressure  to  therefore,  inaccurate.  lotteries.  decriminalize  The  lobbying  mainly from a s i n g l e p r o v i n c e and  The  denial  lotteries  was,  however,  i t was  was  that  being  region.  amended s o l e l y t o A  more  accommodate the  universally  coming  perhaps i m p o l i t i c  f o r the n a t i o n a l government t o acknowledge t h a t the law  was,  applicable  criminal wishes  rationale  of was  employed: the moral ambiguity o f gambling. The on  proposed  moral  grounds,  consensus opinion  section  for  on the  on  179A  the  basis  prohibition i s s u e was  was  explicitly  that  was  the  necessary  social  Varying  public  lacking.  asserted  rationalized  i n Parliament, but was  e m p i r i c a l l y demonstrated. Outside of Quebec, t h e r e had v i r t u a l l y no p u b l i c d i s c u s s i o n merits  since  hearings offered  the  by  the  compelling  the  omnibus  Minister  Nonetheless,  Joint  The  was  argument  altogether  a  lotteries  i s s u e of p u b l i c ambivalence was  consistent  rationale  directed  at  anchoring  Committee  moral  not  its  the  underlying bill  Special  previously.  Justice  one.  amendment t o the with  years  been  of l e g a l i z e d gambling and  Parliamentary  fourteen  not  for  vice  other provisions or  so-called  of  the  victimless  crimes. While  the  uncontentious,  liberalization the  amendments  of  charitable  permitting  gambling  state  was  lotteries  63  were n o t without t h e i r that  point  had been  d e t r a c t o r s . The arguments which, t o successful  s t a t u s q u o were r a i s e d again, it  was  argued  that  such  i n maintaining  the l e g a l  but t o no a v a i l .  lotteries  were  F o r example,  an  inefficient  mechanism f o r r a i s i n g money f o r s t a t e purposes and t h a t they were, i n e f f e c t , It  was  also  a highly regressive  pointed  out t h a t  form o f  taxation.(20)  the Protestant  opposed t o t h e changes.(21) T h i s o p p o s i t i o n  Church  was  had no impact.  During t h e Committee stage o f t h e l e g i s l a t i v e p r o c e s s  only  two  were  minor  considered and  amendments  the  lottery  provisions  and adopted: c l a r i f i c a t i o n t h a t c h a r i t a b l e gaming  gaming a t a p u b l i c p l a c e  d i c e games, t h r e e and  to  o f amusement d i d n o t i n c l u d e  c a r d monte, punch boards and c o i n t a b l e s ;  t h e removal o f f i n a n c i a l  limits  for lottery  schemes a t  a g r i c u l t u r a l f a i r s and e x h i b i t i o n s . ( 2 2 ) The the the  r e v i s e d p r o v i s i o n s passed i n t o law w i t h t h e r e s t o f  omnibus b i l l  i n May 1969(23) w i t h remarkable ease when  contentiousness  homosexuality  and  of  i t s subject  gambling  -  matter  i s considered.  -  abortion, This  j u x t a p o s i t i o n may, i n p a r t , account f o r t h e b i l l ' s The  government o f t h e day was determined  that  very  success.  t h e package  20 Canada. House o f Commons Debates s u p r a f n . 18 a t 5378 (S. Knowles). 21 I b i d a t 7776. 22 Canada. Proceedings o f t h e House o f Commons Standing Committee on J u s t i c e and Legal A f f a i r s s u p r a f n . 19 a t 17-6.  23 T h e C r i m i n a l L a w A m e n d m e n t A c t , S.C. 1968-69, c.38  64  had t o be debated and c o n s i d e r e d i n committee as a whole, so that  the r e j e c t i o n  bill. the  One  bill  of a part  would  compromise  Member o f Parliament, commenting  the  entire  on t h e scope o f  and i t s i m p l i c a t i o n s observed:(24)  I do say t h i s , and perhaps i t i s v e r y abrupt t o say i t , t h a t I t h i n k i t i s a package t o g e t through c e r t a i n t h i n g s we would not normally have got through u n l e s s i t was i n t h i s package. The s t r a t e g y was s u c c e s s f u l . The enactment o f S . 1 7 9 A , words  of  then  Minister  of  Justice,  "withdraws  a p p l i c a t i o n o f the c r i m i n a l law and makes [ l o t t e r y a question of c i v i l , to  be  confirmed  i n the the  schemes]  p u b l i c p o l i c y . " ( 2 5 ) T h i s assessment was  i n the s t r o n g e s t  terms over  the  following  f i f t e e n years.  T h e  F e d e r a l - P r o v i n c i a l Not  S t r u g g l e  surprisingly,  the  o v e r  L o t t e r i e s  government  of  Quebec  was  the  f i r s t t o take advantage o f the p e r m i s s i v e terms o f S . 1 7 9 A the  of  C r i m i n a l C o d e . By the end o f 1969, t h e N a t i o n a l Assembly  had enacted l e g i s l a t i o n e s t a b l i s h i n g two Crown c o r p o r a t i o n s : the  Regie des l o t e r i e s e t courses du Quebec and t h e S o c i e t e  d'exploitation  des  loteries  e t courses  du  Quebec.(26)  The  main f u n c t i o n o f the former i s t o s u p e r v i s e h o r s e r a c i n g and 24 Canada. Proceedings o f the Standing Committee e t c . . s u p r a f n . 19 a t 145 (E. W o l l i a m s ) . 25 Canada. House o f Commons Debates s u p r a f n . 18 a t 7780. 26 L  o  i s  u  r l  e  s L  o  t  e  r  i  e  s e  tC  o  u  r  s  e  s  , S.Q.  1969,  c.28  65  the i s s u i n g was  of licences  for charitable  s e t up t o conduct p r o v i n c i a l The  involved  other in  provinces  lotteries,  were but,  gaming. The  Societe  lotteries. somewhat in  slower  keeping  to  with  get  earlier  p r e d i c t i o n s t h a t l o t t e r i e s would spread i n e x o r a b l y once they had  been  introduced  proliferated 1970s.(28)  rapidly  Since  in  one  region  a c r o s s the  1969,  true  of  country  lotteries  Canada, (27)  they  d u r i n g the  early  have  become  firmly  entrenched i n Canadian c u l t u r e , ( 2 9 ) and a s i g n i f i c a n t source of government revenues.(30)  F u r t h e r , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n western  Canada, the broad s t a t u t o r y d e f i n i t i o n o f a " l o t t e r y scheme" has been used t o accommodate the expansion o f c h a r i t y gaming  27 During debates on the l o t t e r y q u e s t i o n i n 1934, s e v e r a l p o l i t i c i a n s expressed doubt t h a t l o t t e r i e s c o u l d be c o n f i n e d w i t h i n p r o v i n c i a l boundaries: e.g. Canada. House o f Commons Debates (1934) V o l . I l l , 3316-17. 28 Manitoba s e t up a l o t t e r y i n A p r i l 1970.; A l b e r t a , Saskatchewan, B r i t i s h Columbia and the Yukon j o i n e d w i t h Manitoba i n 1974 t o conduct l o t t e r i e s under the u m b r e l l a o f the Western Canada L o t t e r y Foundation; O n t a r i o ' s f i r s t l o t t e r y was h e l d i n 1975; and i n 1976, Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Nova S c o t i a and P r i n c e Edward I s l a n d began i s s u i n g l o t t e r y t i c k e t s through the A t l a n t i c L o t t e r y Corporation. 29 Canadian c u l t u r e has a l s o become h e a v i l y dependent on l o t t e r i e s f o r f u n d i n g . See Canada C o u n c i l , L o t t e r i e s and the a r t s : The Canadian Experience 1970-1980 (Ottawa: Canada C o u n c i l , 1982). 30 For example, i n 1983-84, l o t t e r i e s generated a t o t a l income i n excess o f $126 m i l l i o n f o r members o f the Western Canada L o t t e r y Foundation: W.C.L.F., Annual Report 1983-84 (Winnipeg, 1984).  66  i n the  form o f bingo and  do not  i n v o l v e d i c e e.g.  The of  blackjack  terms of S . 1 7 9 A ( 1 ) ( a )  Canada  "to  accordance  In  introduced, federal  conduct  with  Council".  lottery  c a s i n o - s t y l e games o f  and  when  manage  a  made  by  the  that  roulette.(31)  also permitted  regulations  1969,  and  chance  the government  lottery the  lottery  scheme  in  Governor  amendments  in were  however, the M i n i s t e r o f J u s t i c e s t a t e d t h a t  government  had  no  intention  scheme " a t p r e s e n t " .  apparently  This  of  the  establishing  particular provision  i n c l u d e d simply f o r reasons o f  a was  "symmetry":(32)  It seemed l o g i c a l to the government t h a t i f the criminal law were t o be withdrawn from lotteries managed by private organizations, charitable and r e l i g i o u s , or by a g r i c u l t u r a l f a i r s , an o p t i o n should a l s o l i e w i t h the p r o v i n c i a l government i t s e l f o r w i t h an agent o f a p r o v i n c i a l government, and, s i n c e t h i s was b e i n g done, t h a t the c r i m i n a l law should be t o t a l l y withdrawn i n i t s a p p l i c a t i o n t o the f e d e r a l government i n t h i s area as w e l l . By  1973,  change of  however,  heart.  The  the  government  Olympic L o t t e r y  received  i t s charter  from  the  y e a r and  proceeded t o  conduct  of  Canada had  Corporation  federal  government  Canada in  that for  o b s e r v e r notes t h a t  the  n a t i o n a l government's i n t r u s i o n i n t o s t a t e l o t t e r i e s was  not  Olympic  welcome,  Games i n M o n t r e a l . One  though  Quebec  was  supportive  to  a  r a i s e funds  the  lotteries  of  had  of  this  particular  31 For an a n a l y s i s of c a s i n o gaming i n A l b e r t a , f o r example, see Campbell and Ponting, "The E v o l u t i o n o f Casino Gambling i n A l b e r t a " , (1984) 10 Canadian P u b l i c P o l i c y 142. 32 Canada. House of Commons Debates supra f n . 18 a t 77807781 (J.N. T u r n e r ) .  67  scheme  since  i t would  generated.(33)  This  r e c e i v e most  was  followed  o f t h e funds  by  thereby  the c r e a t i o n  of  a  f e d e r a l l o t t e r y c o r p o r a t i o n , Loto-Canada, i n 1976. The become  perceived an  inefficiencies  election  issue  in  o f Loto-Canada 1979,  o p p o s i t i o n p a r t y p r o m i s i n g t o dismantle lottery  field  i n favour  Progressive Conservative  with  this  undertaking.  lotteries  signed  counterparts  according  federal  of the provinces  i f e l e c t e d . The  p a r t y was indeed  e l e c t e d , and t h e  The f e d e r a l m i n i s t e r an  the  i t and t o v a c a t e t h e  newly formed government took s t e p s t o enable on  were t o  agreement t o which,  with  i t t o make good responsible f o r his  Loto-Canada  provincial would  cease  o p e r a t i o n s on December, 1979 and t h e p r o v i n c e s would pay $24 million  annually  to  the  federal  government  compensation.(34 T h i s arrangement was not f i n a l i z e d form o f l e g i s l a t i o n , lived  Conservative  February, its  government l o s t  i n the  when t h e s h o r t -  the general  election i n  1980, Loto-Canada was r e s u s c i t a t e d , and some o f  reserve  future  however. A c c o r d i n g l y ,  in  funds were used t o r e s e a r c h  f e d e r a l involvement  in lotteries,  the p o t e n t i a l f o r i n particular i n  sports pools.  33 Labrosse, The L o t t e r y : From Jacques C a r t i e r s Day t o Modern Times (Montreal: Stanke, 1985) p. 166. 7  34 The t e x t o f t h i s agreement i s s e t out i n Labrosse, f n . 33 a t 179-181.  supra  68  Legislation passed  in  following  c r e a t i n g the Sports  1983,(35)  year.  and  I t also  it  Pool  commenced  Corporation  was  operations  the  became t h e s u b j e c t  of  litigation  between t h e f e d e r a l government and the provinces.(36)  Before  the F e d e r a l Court had the o p p o r t u n i t y t o c o n s i d e r t h e m e r i t s of  the  argument  of  the  governments a c t i o n s were there  was  another  were r e t u r n e d  i n breach  general  t o power  provinces  with  that  the  o f the 1979  election  and  the  federal  agreement,  Conservatives  an overwhelming m a j o r i t y .  Once  again, n e g o t i a t i o n s were commenced between the two l e v e l s o f government lotteries. t o be  to  settle  T h i s time,  finalized  by  the  issue  however,  an  of  control  the r e s u l t i n g  amendment  over  true  agreement  t o the C r i m i n a l  was C o d e  C a n a d a . In June, 1985, the f e d e r a l m i n i s t e r f o r s p o r t and the provincial agreement  ministers that,  in  responsible exchange  for lotteries  f o r the  federal  signed  an  government  r e l i n q u i s h i n g any c l a i m t o conduct l o t t e r i e s and r e i n f o r c i n g provincial  control of l o t t e r i e s  and gaming,  the  provinces  would make annual c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o the f e d e r a l T r e a s u r y  as  w e l l as $100 m i l l i o n t o the Calgary Winter Olympic Games and would b r i n g a h a l t  to their  government r e g a r d i n g  litigation  against the f e d e r a l  l o t t e r i e s . T h i s agreement which was i n  35 S.C. 1983, c. 51. 36 A t t o r n e y s G e n e r a l o f a l l t h e P r o v i n c e s o f C a n a d a v . Q u e e n i n R i g h t o f C a n a d a (Fed.Ct. T-622-84).  T h e  o f  69  the  form  clause,  of  was  a  contract,  complete  a l s o contingent  the  Criminal  Code  31,  1985.(37)  being  with  a  on c o n s e q u e n t i a l  proclaimed  no  consideration amendments t o  later  than  December  The l e g i s l a t i o n t h a t was d r a f t e d proposed t o r e p e a l the provision  of  permitted lottery  what  was  then  t h e government schemes,  to  o f Canada  make  prohibition  of l o t t e r y  provincial  authorities.(38)  government was  t o be  time  frame  of  the  exemptions  In  divested  Code,  t o conduct from  schemes the e x c l u s i v e  l o t t e r i e s . The p r o v i n c e s The  s.190  other o f any  and manage  the  criminal  domain o f the  words, capacity  were t o have s o l e  which  the  federal  to  conduct  jurisdiction.  i n the June agreement d i d not  leisurely  consideration  There was  almost no p u b l i c d i s c u s s i o n o f the measure which  proposed a r a d i c a l lotteries b i l l a  of  the  Criminal  Code  permit  amendments.  r e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f government power.  was g i v e n  first  r e s u l t o f an a l l - p a r t y  reading  The  i n October, 1985. As  agreement, a b r i e f  the Commons was s u b s t i t u t e d f o r a r e f e r e n c e  discussion i n  t o t h e Standing  Committee on J u s t i c e and Legal A f f a i r s .  T h i s debate and t h e  second  took p l a c e  and t h i r d  readings  of the b i l l  i n less  37 The f u l l t e x t o f t h i s agreement i s s e t out i n Canada. Senate Proceedings o f the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and C o n s t i t u t i o n a l A f f a i r s (1984-85) 1 s t Sess. 33rd P a r i . ' Issue # 31, Appendix "Leg-31-C". 38 An A c t t o Amend the C r i m i n a l Code ( L o t t e r i e s ) , B i l l (1984-85).  C-81,  70  than t h r e e hours on November 6,  1985.(39) In the Senate, i t  was  following  given  r e a d i n g on  first  reading  November 27th.  the The  Senate  day,  and  second  Standing Committee  on  L e g a l and C o n s t i t u t i o n a l A f f a i r s gave the p r o p o s a l s a c l o s e r examination,  but,  concluded  despite serious reservations,  that  they  amendment".(40) The 20th  and  was  should  bill  proclaimed  year.(41)  Parliament  agreement  n e g o t i a t e d by  be  "approved  r e c e i v e d Royal i n force  on  effectively federal  ultimately  Assent  the  final  without  on  December  day  of  "rubber-stamped"  and  provincial  the an  government  officials. In  l e s s than twenty y e a r s the l e g a l s t a t u s o f l o t t e r i e s  and  affiliated  had  been  forms o f  fundamentally  gambling, altered:  i.e. "lottery instead  of  schemes",  being  largely  p r o h i b i t e d under the c r i m i n a l law, they were l e g a l i z e d under provincial level  of  authority. government  They to  effect  to a  levels  o f government may  had  the  been  other  federal-provincial enter  transferred by  from  legislation  giving  c o n t r a c t . Undoubtedly, into  c o n t r a c t s and  one  may  both sue  and be sued on the b a s i s of them. In t h i s i n s t a n c e , however, they were not c o n t r a c t i n g the u s u a l sense  o f the word, f o r  39 Canada. House of Commons Debates (1984-85) V o l . 128, 8415-8434.  pp.  40 Canada Senate Proceedings o f the Standing Committee on L e g a l and C o n s t i t u t i o n a l A f f a i r s , supra f n . 38, Issue # 35, p.15. 41 S.I./86-5, Canada Gazette.  (January, 22, 1986)  p.468.  71  goods o r and  to  services, terminate  but  to  r e - a p p o r t i o n governmental  litigation  in  return  for  c o n s i d e r a t i o n , i n accordance w i t h s t r i c t time The about  Senate  this  Standing  development  Committee  to  seek  a  power  substantial  limits.  was  concerned  enough  legal  opinion.  Counsel  o f f e r e d the f o l l o w i n g assessment:(42) In my o p i n i o n the s u b j e c t matter of t h i s agreement i s c l e a r l y the e x e r c i s e of powers of e x e c u t i v e government. The c o n t r a c t i s entered i n t o by m i n i s t e r s who r e p r e s e n t governments of which they are members. I would submit t h a t the r e s u l t i n g agreement i s not a p r i v a t e c o n t r a c t but a p o l i t i c a l arrangement ... i f t h e r e i s a breach o f those p o l i t i c a l commitments, the proper forum f o r the r e s o l u t i o n would not be the Court; the p r o p e r forum would be i n the p o l i t i c a l chambers o f government. In o t h e r words, the " c o n t r a c t " , b e i n g i n r e a l i t y a mere political  commitment,  justiciable,  then  contractual  format  provincial i t was  or was  was  not  legally  binding  and  not  in  the  future.  Nonetheless,  the  eminently  successful  autonomy r e g a r d i n g l o t t e r y  in  schemes. In p r a c t i c e ,  i r r e l e v a n t t h a t , de j u r e , the r e s p e c t i v e governments  were not bound by the c o n t r a c t , because they and c l e a r l y f e l t bound de Law  reform,  Parliament  facto.  in  this  instance,  was  essentially  b u r e a u c r a t i c or e x e c u t i v e p r o c e s s r a t h e r than a one.  securing  a  legislative  In l a r g e p a r t , t h i s r e s u l t s from the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of  gaming l e g i s l a t i o n  into  a federal-provincial  issue,  and, as  42 Canada Senate, Proceedings of the Standing Committee e t c . supra f n . 38, Issue # 34, p. 12.  72  p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t s point in  Canada  executive  are  federal-provincial  characterized  branches  federal-provincial legislatures  out,  of  both  by  levels  negotiation  and  the  dominance  of  of  the  government.(43)  process  non-governmental  relations  is  one  interests  from  are  The  which  virtually  excluded. As view  Fletcher  with  and  alarm  agreements  to  be  Wallace the  made  legislative  bodies.(44)  (and  agreements  many  observe,  tendency with  can  governments are g e n e r a l l y  for  little  Where  i t is  rigeur  to  federal-provincial of  no  legislation  be  de  reference is  implemented  to  forthcoming without  it)  l o a t h e t o make changes i n hard-won  agreements i n o r d e r t o s a t i s f y l e g i s l a t o r s . Any  debate tends  to  further  be  slight  members  of  completely  and the  out  of  loop".(45)  comments t h a t ,  the  that  arrangements  One  w h i l e i t may their  made  They  parties  federal-provincial  bureaucratic  find  opposition  blocked  therefore,  to  inconsequential.  nearly  Much of  interaction  be  elsewhere,  are  process.  eminent  role  note  is  is  confined  federal  always  the a  time, "closed  constitutional  frustrating for  that  lawyer  legislators  to  Parliament  ratifying is  43 e.g. Smiley, Canada i n Question: F e d e r a l i s m i n the E i g h t i e s 3rd ed. (Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1980) p.  too 91.  44 " F e d e r a l - P r o v i n c i a l R e l a t i o n s and the making of P u b l i c P o l i c y i n Canada: e t c . " i n Simeon (ed.) D i v i s i o n of Powers and P u b l i c P o l i c y (Toronto: U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto P r e s s , 1985) pp. 125-205 a t 128-29. 45  I b i d a t 186-88.  73  dominated by  Cabinet  and  the  party  system t o be  a suitable  forum f o r f e d e r a l - p r o v i n c i a l adjustment.(46)  made  This  pattern  certainly  to  Canadian  gaming  provincial  negotiations  b e f o r e the justified  ministers  occurred  this  responsible  for  federal  Minister  General  on  the  noteworthy ministers  that of  have  enforcement.  there  As  for a  criminal result  in  the  within  between  the  Amateur Sport  the  of  i n the  final  "good stages  the  provincial  justice their  Code,  policy  bill,  substance of the  the  bill  which  that  input,  the  Attorneys-  responsibility  lotteries  s i x months,  Sport  c o n s u l t a t i o n with  Criminal  and  Speaking  representing  is  these  and  law  some  minor  but  none were  proposals  contained  the f e d e r a l - p r o v i n c i a l agreement signed  indicated,  Federal-  any  the  primary  amendments were made t o i n c o n s i s t e n t with  only  J u s t i c e and  the  1985.  lotteries.  Code as  was  amendments t o  given  amendments  Committee, the M i n i s t e r o f  amendments t o the  process  in  primarily  f i s c a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " . ( 4 7 ) I t was of  f o r the  f o r F i t n e s s and  Senate Standing the  true  legislation  f e d e r a l M i n i s t e r of State provincial  holds  i n June, 1985. became  law  As  almost  automatically.  46 Hogg, C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Law C a r s w e l l , 1985) p. 108.  of Canada 2nd  ed.  47 Canada. Senate Proceedings o f the s t a n d i n g supra f n . 38, Issue # 29, p. 15.  (Toronto: Committee e t c .  74  Both i n terms o f p r o c e s s and o f d e f i n i n g t h e scope o f the  criminal  curious  law o f Canada,  precedent.  Were  governments t o agree, amend  other  provinces only  areas  t h e 1985 amendment the  federal  a s i m i l a r process  of  the c r i m i n a l  law  creates  and  provincial  could  be used t o  by  allowing  does t h i s  facilitate  a decentralized  inconsistencies,  but  c r i m i n a l law and i t  also  reduces  governmental a c c o u n t a b i l i t y . As one observer p o i n t s government cannot e a s i l y be h e l d r e s p o n s i b l e i t can  thereof,  on  competitively  plausibly another  blame level  their  or co-operatively  involved  out, a  f o r i t s actions  consequences,  o f government  of a c t i v i t y . ( 4 8 ) Indeed, as w i l l this  the  t o l i c e n s e and r e g u l a t e p r o h i b i t e d a c t i v i t i e s . Not  inter-provincial  if  a  that  or  lack  i s either  i n t h e same  field  be shown i n Chapter  Five,  i s e x a c t l y what has happened i n r e l a t i o n  t o the issue  of n a t i v e gaming. In current  any  Criminal  proscribe been  event,  t h e terms  by  t o t h e extent  the p r o v i n c e s .  True l o t t e r i e s ,  become l e g i t i m a t e  of  Part  VII of the  Code, the f e d e r a l government c o n t i n u e s  gambling, but o n l y  authorized  role.  under  that  i t has not  I t i s a mere  bingo and other  to  residual  games o f chance have  forms o f p u b l i c entertainment  as w e l l  as  sources o f revenue f o r p r o v i n c i a l t r e a s u r i e s and c h a r i t a b l e and  r e l i g i o u s organizations.  48 Stevenson, "The D i v i s i o n o f Powers" i n Simeon (ed.) supra f n . 45. pp.71-123 a t 114. See a l s o Smiley, supra f n . 44 a t 53.  75  In B r i t a i n , without  there  discussion United to  changes such as these would be first  i n the  being  form  of  extensive a  unthinkable  investigation  r o y a l commission. (49)  In  the  S t a t e s , s i m i l a r developments n e c e s s i t a t e d amendments  state  constitutions,  plebiscites  and  government  studies.(50)  In Canada the d e c r i m i n a l i z a t i o n o f these  of  gambling  has  been  Nonetheless,  the  impact  chapters  i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the d i v i s i o n  the  and  the  Constitution  consequential  will  the  also  has  "silent  been  be of  be of  revolution".(51)  profound.  discussed, the  latter  addressed.  "lottery  context  legal/sociological criminal  virtual  In  of powers under  as on  subsequent  well  as  Canada's  the  native  r o l e f o r the p r o v i n c e s i n r e g u l a t i n g p u b l i c  decriminalization within  will  effects  p e o p l e s . The new gaming  a  forms  analyses  of of  First,  schemes"  will  however, be  examined  legal/philosophical the  appropriate  the  ambit  and for  law.  49 e.g. B r i t a i n . Report of the Royal Commission on Gambling (London: H.M.S.O. Cmnd. 7200, 1978). 50 e.g. U.S. Commission on the R e v i s i o n o f the N a t i o n a l P O l i c y Toward Gambling, Gambling i n America (Washington D.C.:Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1976) and U.S. C o u n c i l of S t a t e Governments, Gambling: A Source of S t a t e Revenues (Lexington, 1973). 51 T h i s phrase i s borrowed from Jacob's r e c e n t a n a l y s i s o f the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of d i v o r c e law i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s : A S i l e n t R e v o l u t i o n : Routine P o l i c y Making and the T r a n s f o r m a t i o n of Divorce Law i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s (Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago Press, 1988).  76 C H A P T E R T H E  C O N T R A C T I O N  T H R E E  O F  T H E  C R I M I N A L  L A W  A U n i q u e E n a c t m e n t L i k e most other common law c o u n t r i e s , Canada has become a f i r m adherent t o what c o u l d be termed a "there ought t o a  law  against  i t " mentality.  regularly  invoked  apparent  social  appropriateness unquestioned. Commission  as  criminal  solution to  problems. of  In  recent  this  Canada,  years,  policy by  however,  instituted  law  a myriad  such a response has,  In  of  the  The  in  has  of  been  real  process,  and  large,  the  Law  1970,  be  and the been  Reform  has  devoted  considerable  e f f o r t t o promoting the p r i n c i p l e of r e s t r a i n t  in  of  the  use  the  criminal  success i n terms o f any C r i m i n a l C o d e and The introduced  though  reduction  i n the  with  little  scope of  the  related statutes.  Criminal i n 1967  the work o f the  real  law, (1)  Law  L a w Amendment and  passed  Act(2),  i n May,  which  1969,  Reform Commission, was  thus  was  first  predating  a t the time,  and  1 The Commission's p o s i t i o n on the use of the c r i m i n a l law i s as f o l l o w s : "So c r i m i n a l law must be an instrument of l a s t r e s o r t . I t must be used as l i t t l e as p o s s i b l e . The message must not be d i l u t e d by o v e r k i l l - too many laws and o f f e n c e s and charges and t r i a l s and p r i s o n sentences. S o c i e t y ' s u l t i m a t e weapon must s t a y sheathed as long as p o s s i b l e . The watchword i s r e s t r a i n t - r e s t r a i n t a p p l y i n g t o the scope of c r i m i n a l law, t o the meaning of c r i m i n a l g u i l t , t o the use o f the c r i m i n a l t r i a l and t o the c r i m i n a l sentence." Law Reform Commission of Canada, Report #3: Our C r i m i n a l Law (Ottawa: Information Canada. 1976) p. 27. 2 S.C.  1968-69, C . 3 8 .  77  remains, a r a r e occurrence:  a genuine l e g i s l a t e d c o n t r a c t i o n  of  criminal  the  adult  ambit  of  Canada's  homosexual  practices  degrees r e l e a s e d The  and  why  this  Lottery  abortion,  were  schemes,  in  varying  from the t a i n t of c r i m i n a l p r o h i b i t i o n . ( 3 )  purpose o f t h i s chapter  level  law.  change  i s to explore  in relation  to  on  a theoretical  lotteries  and  other  games o f chance took p l a c e . This  amendment  package  of  are  discourse,  the  morally  homosexuality and which  to  C r i m i n a l  contentious  C o d e was  reforms.  described  as  "sins"  or,  of  a  Gambling,  a b o r t i o n are among a number o f  often  part  behaviours in  " v i c e s " . They are a c t i v i t i e s which are  secular generally  p r i v a t e , p r i n c i p a l l y i n v o l v i n g the a w i l l i n g p a r t i c i p a n t ( s ) . As  Skolnick  pleasure dual  and  observes, popularity,  character:  enjoyed  and  the as  term well  i t i s conduct  deplored,  often  "vice" as  that by  the  often  immorality. can  be  same  suggests I t has  a  simultaneously individuals.(4)  3 In the U n i t e d S t a t e s s i m i l a r r e s u l t s were o f t e n achieved through the c o u r t s r a t h e r than through l e g i s l a t i o n e.g. the access t o a b o r t i o n r e s u l t i n g from the Supreme Court's d e c i s i o n i n R o e v . W a d e , 410 U.S. 113 (1973). S i n c e the entrenchment of the C a n a d i a n C h a r t e r o f R i g h t s a n d F r e e d t h i s avenue f o r l e g a l change has a l s o opened up i n Canada e.g. i n R . v . N o r g e n t a l e r e t a l . , (1988), 37 C.C.C.(3d) 449, the Supreme Court o f Canada found t h a t the r e s t r i c t i o n s which remained on a b o r t i o n s a f t e r the 1969 amendment were unconstitutional. 4 S k o l n i c k , House of Cards (Toronto: L i t t l e , Brown, 1978) p.8; "The S o c i a l Transformation of V i c e " , (1988) 51 Law and Contemporary Problems 9. A b o r t i o n , however, w h i l e o f t e n d e s c r i b e d as a s i n , i s r a r e l y termed a v i c e , and does not have the same c o n n o t a t i o n of p l e a s u r e as the o t h e r behaviours.  78  Vices  a r e i n essence  have t r a d i t i o n a l l y , to  criminal  morally  ambiguous.  Nonetheless,  they  although n o t c o n s i s t e n t l y , been s u b j e c t  sanctions.  During  the  19th  century,  r e p r e s s i v e V i c t o r i a n e r a , such behaviours were  the  increasingly  brought under t h e a e g i s o f t h e c r i m i n a l law. Once t h e s e laws were  created,  regardless  they  One  quite d i f f i c u l t  controversial  commentator  tend  observes,  t h e law.(6)  notes  t o shy away  and p o l a r i z i n g  that  from  issues.(5)  i t i s often easier  l e g a l change" through of  certain  immutability,  i t i s generally  t o r e s c i n d such laws by express  Politicians  Friedmann  a  o f whether o r n o t they were e n f o r c e d o r indeed  enforceable.  act.  obtained  legislative  c o n f r o n t i n g these Consequently, t o achieve  a policy  was  adopted  As the" p r e v i o u s  chapters  however,  o f non-enforcement in  many  Parliament  legislation  relating  "tacit  an i n f o r m a l p o l i c y o f non-enforcement indicate,  decades p r e c e d i n g t h e enactment o f t h e omnibus b i l l such  as  areas did  o f gambling  across  chose  t o gambling,  to  i n the i n 1969,  prohibitions  Canada.  Ultimately,  enact  liberalizing  homosexual p r a c t i c e s and  a b o r t i o n . I t was t o be t h e o n l y enactment o f i t s k i n d . Drug use, s o l i c i t i n g f o r t h e purposes  o f p r o s t i t u t i o n and obscene  p u b l i c a t i o n s , which might a l s o come w i t h i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f  5 R i c h , Crimes Without V i c t i m s : Deviance and t h e C r i m i n a l Law (Washington, D . C : U n i v e r s i t y Press o f America, 1978) p. 27. 6 Friedmann, Law i n a Changing S o c i e t y (2d ed.) (London: Stevens, 1972) p. 32.  79  vices  or m o r a l l y ambiguous behaviour,  under Canadian c r i m i n a l  T h e  L e g a l The  E n f o r c e m e n t formal  are  still  prohibited  law.  o f  M o r a l i t y  rationale offered  by the  government of  the  day f o r the l o t t e r y p r o v i s i o n s of the C r i m i n a l L a w A m e n d m e n t A c t centred Canada for  on  i n the  the  the  notion  mid-1960s,  continued  of  moral  a national  ambiguity: consensus was  criminalization  of  Accordingly,  p e r m i t t i n g or p r o h i b i t i n g  to  r e g i o n a l or  become  a  provincial  that,  these  in  lacking  activities.  lottery  schemes  was  responsibility.(7)  The  l e g a l s t a t u s o f l o t t e r i e s would r e f l e c t l o c a l v a l u e s . Implicit  in  society's values that  the  this and  criminal  justification  the  law  criminal  should  law  reflect  is  the  notion  should be those  that  congruent;  values  and  try t o impose a common standard where none e x i s t s ; and  not that  t h e r e are s i t u a t i o n s i n which r e s o r t t o the c r i m i n a l law  as  a method o f s o c i a l c o n t r o l i s i n a p p r o p r i a t e . This legal  official  philosophy  reasoning  of  is  clearly  reflective  c o n s i d e r a b l e pedigree,  resting  of as  a it  does on the work o f such n o t a b l e s as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart  M i l l . (8)  7 See Chapter Two,  One  of  the  main  tasks  assumed  by  these  f n . 19 and surrounding t e x t .  8 The work of Bentham and M i l l and o f t h e i r adherents d e t r a c t o r s has been examined m i n u t e l y i n numerous  and  80  Enlightenment rational of  philosophers  theory  legislation.  for  law  for state They  in a just  was  that  action,  sought  society.  of  particularly  t o d e f i n e an The  enunciating  a  i n the  form  appropriate  role  foundations  for their  work  were a c t u a l l y l a i d i n the 13th c e n t u r y by S t . Thomas Aquinas who  p r e s c r i b e d the  following relationship  between  law  and  vice:(9) Law i s l a i d down f o r a g r e a t number o f people o f which the g r e a t m a j o r i t y have no h i g h standard o f m o r a l i t y , t h e r e f o r e i t does not f o r b i d a l l the v i c e s from which u p r i g h t men can keep away but o n l y those grave ones which the average man can a v o i d and c h i e f l y those which do harm t o o t h e r s and have t o be stopped i f human s o c i e t y i s t o be maintained, such as murder, t h e f t and so f o r t h . In  other  words,  misconduct The  law  should  be  reserved  key  much  serious  which i s harmful t o o t h e r s . determinant  of  "harm t o o t h e r s " was  c e n t r a l t o the work of John S t u a r t M i l l , owed  for  to  his  predecessor,  t o become  a utilitarian  Bentham.  Jeremy  who  Bentham  c o n s t r u c t e d a t h e o r y o f l e g i s l a t i o n f o r a c h i e v i n g the p u b l i c good. He viewed every law as an e v i l because i t i n f r i n g e d individual the  liberty.  a c t s i t sought  these  evils,  are  I t became a t o prevent  greater  than  necessary  "are  really  those  evil  only  evils,  employed  to  and  on  where that  prevent  commentaries. The d i s c u s s i o n t h a t f o l l o w s does not p u r p o r t t o be a n y t h i n g but a b r i e f review o f t h e i r i d e a s , p a r t i c u l a r l y as they might r e l a t e t o l e g i s l a t i v e c o n t r o l s on gambling. 9 Summa T h e o l o q i a e . c i t e d i n Lee, Law O.U.P., 1986) p. 9.  and M o r a l i t y (Oxford:  81  them."(10)  This  legislators  had  would be  effective  an  was  the  to  produce a g r e a t e r  be  principle  satisfied  of  that  utility.  Further,  criminal  sanctions  d e t e r r e n t ; t h a t punishment would  mischief  than the  criminal act  and  not that  t h e r e were no o t h e r means o f p r e v e n t i n g the wrongdoing. In r e l a t i o n t o t h i s l a t t e r concern - the p r e v e n t i o n crime ,- Bentham had  a unique p e r s p e c t i v e . He  encouragement of "amusements" f o r two of  the  pastimes  themselves  and  their  "dangerous i n c l i n a t i o n s " . In h i s l i s t he i n c l u d e d the  reasons:  advocated the  tendency  to  of the  pleasure weaken  of s u i t a b l e amusements  following:(11)  The i n v e n t i o n o f p l a y s and pastimes, whether a t h l e t i c o r sedentary, among which games o f cards hold a d i s t i n g u i s h e d rank. Games of hazard should alone be excluded. These t r a n q u i l s p o r t s have brought the sexes t o g e t h e r , have d i m i n i s h e d ennui, t h a t malady p e c u l i a r to the human race, e s p e c i a l l y t o the opulent c l a s s e s and t o the o l d . It  should  be  noted  that  chance from h i s l i s t clearly his  saw  he  did  not  exclude  a l l games  of  o n l y hazard.  He  f o r moderate gaming which,  in  of s u i t a b l e pastimes,  a positive role  view, should be encouraged r a t h e r than be p r o h i b i t e d by  the c r i m i n a l law.(12) 10 Bentham, Theory of L e g i s l a t i o n 48.  (London: Trubner, 1879)  p.  11 I b i d a t 376-77. 12 Bentham noted t h a t governments had not e n t i r e l y n e g l e c t e d t h i s branch o f p o l i c y , but had pursued i t t o make the p o p u l a t i o n p a s s i v e and submissive t o the government, r a t h e r than " t o render the c i t i z e n s more u n i t e d among themselves, more happy, more i n d u s t r i o u s , more^virtuous": i b i d a t 377. I n t e r e s t i n g l y , t h i s view of l e g a l i z e d gambling as a p a c i f i e r  82  Regarding v i c e s i n g e n e r a l , Bentham was o f t h e o p i n i o n that  individuals  interests.  were  Where they  the  could  best  judges  injure  of  their  own  no-one but themselves,  the law s h o u l d l e a v e them alone:(13) I f they d e c e i v e themselves, i t i s t o be supposed t h a t the moment they d i s c o v e r t h e i r e r r o r they w i l l a l t e r t h e i r conduct. The power o f t h e law need i n t e r f e r e o n l y t o p r e v e n t them from i n j u r i n g each o t h e r . As  one  determining  commentator  on  the appropriate  however o b j e c t i v e  i t might  the role  Benthamite for criminal  approach law  to  states,  appear t o be on t h e s u r f a c e , i t  does not reduce c r i m i n a l l e g i s l a t i o n t o a p r o c e s s o f s t r i c t c a l c u l a t i o n . There i s room f o r d i s p u t e r e g a r d i n g t h e a c t u a l consequences in  the  o f conduct i t i s sought t o p r o h i b i t , as w e l l as  designation  Nonetheless,  of  such  consequences  Bentham drew a t t e n t i o n  as  harmful.(14)  t o the continuing  t o s c r u t i n i z e e x i s t i n g c r i m i n a l laws i n a c r i t i c a l  need  l i g h t and  not t o enact any new laws without s i m i l a r d e l i b e r a t i o n . Mill  took  determining legitimately  a  very  t h e nature be  similar and l i m i t s  exercised  by  utilitarian  approach  o f t h e power which  society  over  the  in can  individual,  f o c u s s i n g on harm t o others:(15) o f t h e working c l a s s e s i s a contemporary not i n f r e q u e n t l y v o i c e d .  criticism  which i s  13 I b i d a t 63. 14 Hughes, "Morals and t h e C r i m i n a l Law", J o u r n a l 662 a t 665. 15 M i l l , On L i b e r t y 1947) p. 9.  (1962) 71 Y a l e Law  (New York: Appleton-Century C r o f t s ,  83 [The simple] p r i n c i p l e i s , t h a t the s o l e end f o r which mankind are warranted, i n d i v i d u a l l y o r c o l l e c t i v e l y , i n i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h the l i b e r t y of the a c t i o n of any of t h e i r number, i s s e l f - p r o t e c t i o n . That the o n l y purpose f o r which power can be r i g h t f u l l y e x e r c i s e d over any member o f a c i v i l i z e d community, a g a i n s t h i s w i l l , i s t o prevent harm t o o t h e r s . H i s own good, e i t h e r p h y s i c a l or moral, i s not a s u f f i c i e n t warrant. As  with  exclude other  Bentham's l e g i s l a t i v e gambling u n l e s s  than  although  the  immediately,  i t can be  players  the  might  * ripple  this  would  seem  to  shown t o harm i n d i v i d u a l s  themselves.  gambler the  formula,  Mill  acknowledged  only  effect'  harm  of  that  him/herself  that  harm  might  u l t i m a t e l y impact on o t h e r s . Nonetheless, he maintained  that  such a c t i v i t i e s  they  lead  a  could  person  to  o b l i g a t i o n t o any the the  only violate  d e a l t with "a  " s e l f - r e g a r d i n g class".(16) state  could  do  the  goods and  s e r v i c e s i n order  taxation  deems c o n t r a r y t o the b e s t such  distinct  a  He  indirectly  i.e.  as  by  law and  when  assignable  o t h e r person" which would take  directly,  long  be  or  of  d i d , however, admit t h a t what  it  should  licensing  t o discourage  of  also  had  not  do  questionable  conduct which i t  i n t e r e s t s of the  measure  i t out  individual,  as  revenue-raising  purposes:(17) [ I ] t must be remembered t h a t t a x a t i o n f o r fiscal purposes is absolutely inevitable; that in most c o u n t r i e s i t i s necessary t h a t a c o n s i d e r a b l e p a r t of t h a t t a x a t i o n should be i n d i r e c t ; t h a t the State, t h e r e f o r e , cannot h e l p imposing p e n a l t i e s , which t o some persons may be p r o h i b i t o r y , on the use of some a r t i c l e s o f consumption, i t i s hence the duty o f the 16 I b i d a t 80-81. 17 I b i d a t 102-103.  84 S t a t e t o c o n s i d e r , i n the i m p o s i t i o n of t a x e s , what commodities the consumer can best spare; and a f o r t i o r i , t o s e l e c t i n p r e f e r e n c e those which i t deems the use, beyond a v e r y moderate q u a n t i t y , t o be p o s i t i v e l y i n j u r i o u s . T a x a t i o n , t h e r e f o r e , .... up t o the p o i n t which produces the l a r g e s t amount o f revenue .... i s not o n l y a d m i s s i b l e , but t o be approved o f . So-called  * s i n t a x e s ' have become an  i n t e g r a l p a r t of s t a t e  f i n a n c i n g . They pose a dilemma f o r the S t a t e , however, which Mill  did  not  address:  self-destructive state  the  tension  impulses  revenues.  although  the  As  of  one  between  i t s citizens  contemporary  r e g u l a t i o n of  reining  liquor  and  and  other  would  dilemma;  inevitably  a t worst,  resolve  he  i t i n the  argues,  vices  derived  over time, c o n t r o l  over revenue becomes more o f an imperative.(18) this  the  maximizing  observer  t h e i r impetus from p a t e r n a l i s t i c motives,  ignored  in  At b e s t  assumed t h a t the best  interests  Mill state  of  the  Bentham  and  individual. The Mill  utilitarian  did  hearted  not  meet  acceptance  key  critic  i n the  and  would-be  legislative with  first  Liberty. realm  uncritical  19th  codifier  published  century of  the  necessary  to  the  whole-  jurists.  influential  in  1873  as had  a  response  to  Its  scholar  S i r James  Liberty. Equality. Fraternity,  enforcement use  the  or  and  E n g l i s h c r i m i n a l law,  advocated t h a t law  of  was  of  acceptance  from e i t h e r p o l i t i c i a n s  Stephen. H i s t r e a t i s e , was  philosophy  which  Mill's  On  to replace r e l i g i o n  in  the  of morality. Accordingly,  it  was  c r i m i n a l law  18 Brown-John, Canadian Regulatory Butterworths, 1981) p. 47.  to  protect  Agencies e t c .  society; to (Toronto:  85  e s t a b l i s h and morality  m a i n t a i n r e l i g i o n s ; t o e s t a b l i s h and  and  to  make  government or s o c i a l Mill  and  individual  existing  sometimes the  costs  of  i n terms of p u b l i c expense and  privacy,  of the o p i n i o n vices"  in  i n s t i t u t i o n s . ( 1 9 ) While he  Bentham t h a t  c r i m i n a l law,  alterations  such as  outweigh the  possible  to  the  exemplary  using  the  no  ingratitude  and  the  invasion  benefits,  " p e r f i d y " . (20)  apart  offender  they  and  must  be  punished  sentiments m i r r o r e d  On  he  the  of was  they  other  outrageous  prevented  if  o f the c r i m i n a l law  Victorian  to regulate  doubt permeated Stephen's work on  upon  in  at  occur  any with  severity".(21)  These the use  of  t h a t t h i s only h e l d t r u e i n r e l a t i o n t o "mere  self-protection  costs  forms  agreed w i t h  hand, t h e r e were " a c t s o f wickedness so g r o s s and that  maintain  which  the  first  Criminal  Code  Consequently, Canadian c r i m i n a l Friedmann  has  function  of  certain  moral  termed  criminal  a  and  using to  towards  private morality  a draft criminal of  has  Canada  was  i t to punish  19 Stephen, L i b e r t y . E q u a l i t y . F r a t e r n i t y C.U.P.,1967) p. 61.  approach defend vice,  to  and  including  (Cambridge:  21 I b i d a t 163. By " s e l f - p r o t e c t i o n " Stephen means the p r o t e c t i o n of the members of s o c i e t y from harm. at  191.  the  protect  151.  22 Friedmann, supra fn.6  code  based.  gambling.(22)  20 I b i d a t  and  leaned towards what  fundamentalist  law,  values  law  attitudes  86  Attention t o the issue the  criminal  of the appropriate function of  law was renewed  i n the l a t e  1950s when t h e  r e p o r t o f t h e Wolfenden Committee on Homosexual O f f e n c e s and Prostitution principle  i n England  underlying  was  published.(23)  t h e Committee's  The  specific  general  proposals,  which i n c l u d e d t h e d e c r i m i n a l i z a t i o n o f p r i v a t e ,  consensual  homosexual a c t s , was t h a t t h e r e i s a realm o f conduct which, irrespective  of i t s morality  law's b u s i n e s s " legitimate underlying proposals  and by i t s v e r y  scope  nature  of the criminal  rationale, which  o r immorality,  r a t h e r than  proved  i s "not t h e  falls  law.(24)  outside the I t was  t h e Committee's  t o be t h e c a t a l y s t  this  specific  f o r t h e famous  *debate' between t h e E n g l i s h judge, P a t r i c k D e v l i n and l e g a l s c h o l a r , H.L.A. H a r t . Lord posed  Devlin  agreed  an important  criminal  that  t h e Wolfenden  Committee had  q u e s t i o n , i . e . what t h e f u n c t i o n  law should be, but d i s a g r e e d w i t h  of the  i t s answer. I n  h i s view, t h e c r i m i n a l law must uphold t h e "common m o r a l i t y " as  determined  through  the  medium  of  ^reasonable man'; immorality, f o r t h e purpose what  every  "right  minded  person"  the  legendary  o f t h e law,  i s presumed  t o consider  23 Great B r i t a i n Committee on Homosexual Offences and P r o s t i t u t i o n , Report (London: H.M.S.O.,1957) Cmnd. 247. 24 I b i d a t 24.  is  87  immoral.(25) morality vice  Devlin  dichotomy  i s as  subversive  and  much the  Hart's  accept that  law's b u s i n e s s The  the  private/public  "the  suppression  of  the  suppression  of  as  cumulative  effect  of  private  d e t r i m e n t a l t o the p u b l i c weal.(26)  response  determining  not  concluded  activities".  immorality was  the  could  the  was  firmly  scope of the  the  criminal  "harm t o o t h e r s " p r i n c i p l e .  between law and m o r a l i t y he  in  utilitarian  law  Regarding  mold,  by  reference to  the  relationship  stated:(27)  No doubt we would a l l agree t h a t a consensus o f moral o p i n i o n on c e r t a i n matters i s e s s e n t i a l i f s o c i e t y i s t o be worth l i v i n g i n . Laws a g a i n s t murder, t h e f t and much e l s e would be o f l i t t l e use i f they were not supported by a w i d e l y d i f f u s e d c o n v i c t i o n t h a t what these laws f o r b i d i s a l s o immoral. So much i s obvious. But i t does not f o l l o w t h a t e v e r y t h i n g t o which the moral vetoes of accepted m o r a l i t y a t t a c h i s o f equal importance t o s o c i e t y ; nor i s t h e r e the slightest reason f o r t h i n k i n g of m o r a l i t y as a seamless web: one which w i l l f a l l t o p i e c e s c a r r y i n g s o c i e t y w i t h i t , u n l e s s a l l i t s emphatic vetoes are e n f o r c e d by law. Hart  also  morality"  on  distinction accepted an  Hart  the  grounds  between  and  ideal  criticized  the  shared by  (or  argued,  the  that  which  a  an  "common important be  (^positive' morality)  and  m o r a l i t y . To danger  of  to  of  25 D e v l i n , The Enforcement of Morals U.P.,1959) p. 16. 26 I b i d a t  notion  i t obscures  morality  a society  ^critical') ran  Devlin's  happens  enforce  the  entrenching  former,  society's  (London: Oxford  15.  27 H a r t . "Immorality 1959) p.162 a t 163.  and Treason",  The L i s t e n e r  (July  30,  88  prejudices  under  distinction  t h e banner  was made by Dworkin  and  "mere p r e j u d i c e s ,  and  rationalizations".  community,  personal  providing  consists  by  widespread, sense"  mere  and i s undeserving have  "common m o r a l i t y "  also  societies  the  convictions  convictions a  of a  genuine  law; but t h e " m o r a l i t y "  which  aversion,  no  i n a weak  "anthropological  only  of legal criticized  matter  enforcement.(29) Devlin's  how  Other  concept  of  not on t h e b a s i s o f h i s m i s c o n c e p t i o n o f  value  outside  similar  a r b i t r a r y dogmas  constitute  what counts as a common m o r a l i t y , ignores  moral  A  Dworkin suggested, might w e l l be  emotional  i s a morality  commentators  aversions,  they  the criminal  in  between moral  The a c t u a l  "discriminatory morality", enforced  o f morality.(28)  plurallism  b u t on t h e b a s i s t h a t i t which  o f a c e n t r a l core  exists  in  modern  o f shared v a l u e s . F o r  example, Wollheim wrote t h a t , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e p h i l o s o p h y o f liberalism, not  the identity  on t h e p o s s e s s i o n  and c o n t i n u i t y o f a s o c i e t y r e s t s  o f a s i n g l e "common m o r a l i t y " but on  the mutual t o l e r a t i o n o f d i f f e r e n t  28 Hart Law. L i b e r t y and M o r a l i t y 1963) p. 70.  moralities.(30)  ( S t a n f o r d : S t a n f o r d U.P.,  29 Dworkin, "Lord D e v l i n and t h e Enforcement o f Morals", (1966) 75 Y a l e Law J o u r n a l 1001. 30 Wollheim, "Crime, S i n and Mr J u s t i c e D e v l i n " ,(1959) 13 Encounter 34. See a l s o Nagel, "The Enforcement o f M o r a l s " i n Kurtz (ed.) Moral Problems i n Contemporary S o c i e t y (Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1969) pp.137-160.  8 9  A s  o n e  p o s i t i o n o f  o b s e r v e r  o n  t h e  c r i m i n a l  1 9 6 0 s . ( 3 1 )  M o r t o n  i n  o n  f u n c t i o n  t h e  h i s  t h e  c r i m i n a l  s e e  t h a t  f o r  t h e  i n  h i s  Code i n  n o t e s ,  h e  l a w I n  b r i e f o f  l a w g e t s  a n d  b u t  t h e  t h e r e  t o  l a w s a v e  s a f e l y ? " o f  p l a y  m o d e s t  s p h e r e  H e  b e c a m e  o f  t h e  w a s  1 9 6 2 . ( 3 2 )  o p t e d  c r i m i n a l  u p  o f H e  t h e l a w ,  p r o h i b i t i o n si n  b y  l e c t u r e s a s k e d ,  f r o m  f o r  o r t h o d o x y  t a k e n  c o l l e c t i o n  c i t i z e n  D e v l i n ' s  s i n  " I s  o r  t o  l a t t e r .  A s  t h e r e t h e  w e r e ,  Criminal  " s a v e t h e m f r o m s i n " c a t e g o r y w h i c h s h o u l d b e  r e m o v e d . ( 3 3 ) - H i s s h o u l d  t h e  C a n a d i a n  e s t i m a t i o n ,a n u m b e r o f t h e  i n  c r i t i q u e  b a n n e r  i n f l u e n t i a l  c r i m i n a l  s t a t e  l i b e r a l  m o r a l i t y  C a n a d a ,  h o m e  e x i s t i n g  t h e  a n  c o n c e p t i o n e d u c a t i v e  o f  o r  o f  t h e  c r i m i n a l  i n c u l c a t i v e  l a w  r o l e  w a s  w i t h i n  t h a t a  i t v e r y  a c t i o n : ( 3 4 )  T h e t h e s i s t h a t o n e o f t h e f u n c t i o n s o f c r i m i n a l l a w i s t o a c t a s a s o c i a l c o n d i t i o n i n g d e v i c e p e r m i t s a s e n s i b l e s o l u t i o n t o t h e p r o b l e m o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n l a w a n d m o r a l i t y . I n t h i s t h e s i s , t h e f u n c t i o n o f c r i m i n a l l a w i s n o t t o e n f o r c e , b u t t o c r e a t e o r h e l p c r e a t e a c o m m o n m o r a l i t y . T h e p u r p o s e i s n o t t o r e f l e c t , b u t t o c r e a t e o r r e i n f o r c e t h e d e e p a n d u n g o v e r n a b l e f e e l i n g s l i k e i n d i g n a t i o n , d i s g u s t a n d t h e s e n s e o f t h e a b o m i n a b l e , b y w h i c h t h e o r d i n a r y c i t i z e n i s , i n p a r t , c o n t r o l l e d . T h e n e c e s s i t y f o r s o c i e t y t o c r e a t e a n d p e r p e t u a t e s u c h a c o n d i t i o n i n g d e v i c e e x i s t s , i n m y v i e w , o n l y i n t h e a r e a s o f p r o t e c t i o n t o w h i c h t h e W o l f e n d e n C o m m i t t e e r e f e r r e d , i . e . b o u n d s o f common m o r a l i t y s h o u l d e n c o m p a s s o n l y t h e p r e s e r v a t i o f p u b l i c o r d e r a n d d e c e n c y , t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e c i t i z e n f r o m i n j u r y , a n d t h e p r e v e n t i o n o f e x p l o i t a t i o n o f t h e w e a k . 3 1  L e e , supra f n . 9 a t  2 8 .  3 2 M o r t o n , T h e F u n c t i o n o f C r i m i n a l C . B . C . P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1 9 6 2 ) . 3 3 Ibid  a t 5 - 7 .  3 4 Ibid a t 3 8 .  L a w  i n  1 9 6 2  ( T o r o n t o :  90  Hence,  the  advocated and  prevailing  justified  legal  the  philosophy  of  a c t i o n s taken by  lottery  tickets  or p l a y i n g o t h e r  might be c r i t i c i z e d as f o o l i s h and of  a nature  deserving  law  was  games o f  criticized  not  only  scientists.  V i c t i m l e s s  t h e  C r i m i n a l  focussing  almost  After criminal  decades  L i m i t s of  behaviour  sociologists  and  and  o f  theories  criminologists  came  to  behaviour  the  process.  fore  in  i s nothing  The  this  era,  more than  began  to  on  causation, turn  their  i t s e l f p l a y s i n the perspective,  emphasized what  legal  exclusively crime  labelling  by  of the  S a n c t i o n  of  a t t e n t i o n t o the r o l e t h a t c r i m i n a l law criminalization  not  u n i v e r s a l c r i m i n a l condemnation.(35)  being  t h e  chance  f o o l h a r d y , but i t was  p h i l o s o p h e r s but a l s o by s o c i a l  C r i m e ;  in  gambling i n the form  During t h i s same time p e r i o d , however, the over-reach criminal  1960s  Parliament  the C r i m i n a l L a w A m e n d m e n t A c t i n 1969: of buying  the  the  law  that says  which  criminal i t is.  Becker s t r e s s e d t h i s i n h i s famous statement:(36) 35 On the t o p i c of gambling's p o t e n t i a l f o r harm, Geis notes t h a t i t i s one of the l e s s s e r i o u s v i c e s i n r e g a r d t o i t s d i r e c t harm t o the i n d i v i d u a l : " I t has no p h y s i c a l consequences except by i n d i r e c t i o n . I t i s not apt t o be p a r t i c u l a r l y time consuming. I t may engender a p h i l o s o p h y r a t h e r u n r e a l i s t i c i n terms of mundane e x i s t e n c e , but i t i s arguable whether such a p h i l o s o p h y i s more d e t r i m e n t a l than e n a b l i n g t o an i n d i v i d u a l . " Not the Law's Business ( R o c k v i l l e : N.I.M.H., 1972) p. 245. 36 Becker, O u t s i d e r s : S t u d i e s i n the S o c i o l o g y of Deviance (New York: The Free Press, 1963) p. 9.  91 [ S ] o c i a l groups c r e a t e deviance by making those r u l e s whose i n f r a c t i o n c o n s t i t u t e s deviance, and by a p p l y i n g those r u l e s t o p a r t i c u l a r people and l a b e l i n g them as o u t s i d e r s . From t h i s p o i n t o f view, deviance i s not a q u a l i t y o f the a c t the person commits, but r a t h e r a consequence of the a p p l i c a t i o n by o t h e r s of r u l e s and s a n c t i o n s t o an " o f f e n d e r " . The d e v i a n t i s one t o whom that label has s u c c e s s f u l l y been a p p l i e d ; d e v i a n t b e h a v i o r i s b e h a v i o r t h a t people so l a b e l . (Emphasis i n the o r i g i n a l ) Accordingly,  many  forms  "cured" by  changing  the  criminal  which  removal  or  repeal  the  advocated, was  a  lawyer  empirical criminal Perhaps  and  criminal  of  The  the  could  primary  criminal  be  area i n law  was  s e x u a l conduct, drug  use,  gambling.  " v i c t i m l e s s crime" was sociologist,  study  behaviour  law.  t h a t o f v i c e , e.g.  p r o s t i t u t i o n and The term  of  of the  in  f i r s t c o i n e d by  1965  he  attempted  an  c o s t s or consequences  of using  the  law t o s a n c t i o n p r i v a t e ,  when  Schur,  consensual p r a c t i c e s . ( 3 7 )  the most obvious consequence i s t h a t  laws  are  c r i m i n o g e n i c : they c r e a t e crime and c r i m i n a l s and d r i v e  the  provision  of  onto  black  the  the  f o r b i d d e n goods market  where  *organized crime'. These laws  and  they  may  such  services be  underground  monopolized  tend t o be n e i t h e r  by  routinely  e n f o r c e d nor obeyed, which c r e a t e s d i s r e s p e c t f o r the law as a whole. Because they are concerned  almost e x c l u s i v e l y  behaviour t h a t takes p l a c e i n p r i v a t e ,  when these laws  with are  37 Schur, Crimes Without V i c t i m s : Deviant Behavior and P u b l i c P o l i c y (Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1965. He expounds on the same theme i n a debate w i t h the p h i l o s o p h e r , Bedau i n V i c t i m l e s s Crimes: Two S i d e s of a C o n t r o v e r s y (Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1974).  92  enforced, police  objectionable  corruption,  substantial freedom  human  of  law enforcement p r a c t i c e s , i n c l u d i n g  are  often  costs:  choice  the  and  used.(38)  There  curtailment  personal  of  are  also  individual  degradation.  Schur  •concludes:(39) To m a r s h a l l e m p i r i c a l evidence as has been done here i s not t o argue f o r an extreme u t i l i t a r i a n i s m i n which i t i s assumed t h a t some k i n d o f q u a n t i t a t i v e c a l c u l a t i o n can produce a u t h o r i t a t i v e answers t o complex moral q u e s t i o n s . In t h e absence o f u n i v e r s a l moral consensus, assessments o f evidence and weighings o f a l t e r n a t i v e s w i l l n e c e s s a r i l y e n t a i l reference t o p a r t i c u l a r value h i e r a r c h i e s ; t h e reasoning by which an a n a l y s t would support h i s judgement can, o f course, be made known and in turn be assessed by others. Inevitably, a u t i l i t a r i a n o r r e l a t i v i s t i c stance i m p l i e s u n c e r t a i n t y . One who adopts such a stance d e n i e s h i m s e l f as w e l l as o t h e r s t h e comfort o f a b s o l u t e s . Yet such u n c e r t a i n t y may n o t be i n a p p r o p r i a t e t o a world i n which presumably less-than-perfect policy decisions are made continuously ... I f we cannot have c e r t a i n t y i n our r e c o u r s e t o t h e c r i m i n a l law, perhaps a t l e a s t we would be wise t o e x e r c i s e r e s t r a i n t . The much  s o l u t i o n he o f f e r s i s " d e c r i m i n a l i z a t i o n " , n o t so  because  defined problems words, complete  as  the targeted  social  better  problems,  dealt  with  decriminalization absence  behaviours  have  but because by other  does  of controls,  not just  been  they  are  mechanisms. necessarily of criminal  wrongly social  In mean  other the  sanctions.  38 Packer notes t h a t gambling o f f e n c e s share w i t h n a r c o t i c s laws t h e dubious d i s t i n c t i o n o f having produced t h e major p o r t i o n o f t h e U.S. Supreme Court's d e c i s i o n s on i l l e g a l searches, w i r e t a p p i n g and other forms o f e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e , and entrapment: The L i m i t s o f t h e C r i m i n a l S a n c t i o n ( S t a n f o r d : S t a n f o r d U.P., 1968). 39 Schur and Bedau, supra f n . 37 a t 46-7.  93  Doing  nothing  i s rarely a  viable  alternative.(40)  Schur notes t h a t the means by which goods and be  l e g a l l y provided  specific  policy  administrative  s e r v i c e s might  under a p o l i c y of d e c r i m i n a l i z a t i o n  important c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of  Indeed,  which may  proposals.  regulation  of  s u b s t i t u t e method of s o c i a l  i n f l u e n c e the Accordingly,  vices  i s often  are  acceptance medical  proposed  or as  control.(41)  Schur's campaign of d e c r i m i n a l i z a t i o n , premised on notion  that  social Herbert  He  was  Packer.  In  might b e s t ,  in mind  c l e a r and  joined  scientists,(42)  Criminal Sanction, law  the  laws p r o s c r i b i n g v i c t i m l e s s crime produce more  s o c i a l harm than good, has l e g a l theory.  a  his  direct links to  i n h i s task  perhaps seminal  by  none more work,  several  liberal eminent  influential  The  Limits  than  of  the  he addressed h i m s e l f t o what the c r i m i n a l  and  most e f f e c t i v e l y ,  i t s enormous c o s t s .  To  this  be  used  end  he  for,  bearing  constructed  a  40 Schur, s u p r a f n . 37 a t 178. The d i f f e r e n t models o f d e c r i m i n a l i z a t i o n and t h e i r l e g a l i m p l i c a t i o n s are d i s c u s s e d i n f r a i n Chapter 6. 41 I b i d . Thus, f o r example, the d e c r i m i n a l i z a t i o n of l i q u o r consumption and gambling has g e n e r a l l y r e l i e d on a l t e r n a t e p o l i c i e s of t i g h t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o n t r o l s . See, f o r example, the d i s c u s s i o n of a l c o h o l c o n t r o l by Levine: "The B i r t h of American A l c o h o l C o n t r o l e t c " (1985) Contemporary Drug Problems 63, and of gaming c o n t r o l by S k o l n i c k : House o f Cards s u p r a f n . 4. 42 e.g. Kadish, "The C r i s i s of O v e r - C r i m i n a l i z a t i o n " , (1967) 374 Annals of the American Academy of P o l i t i c a l and S o c i a l Science 157; S k o l n i c k , "Coercion t o V i r t u e : The Enforcement o f Morals", (1968) 41 Southern C a l i f o r n i a Law Review 588; G e i s , s u p r a f n . 35.  94  "bench  mark"  for  the  optimal  use  of  the  criminal  sanction:(43) The c r i t e r i a f o r c h o i c e seem so c l e a r t h a t i t may be t r i t e t o rehearse them. They i n c l u d e the f o l l o w i n g : (1) The conduct i s prominent i n most people's view o f s o c i a l l y t h r e a t e n i n g behavior, and i s not condoned by any s i g n i f i c a n t segment of s o c i e t y . (2) S u b j e c t i n g i t t o the c r i m i n a l s a n c t i o n i s not i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the g o a l s of punishment. (3) Suppressing i t will not inhibit socially d e s i r a b l e conduct. (4) I t may be d e a l t w i t h through even-handed and n o n d i s c r i m i n a t o r y enforcement. (5) C o n t r o l l i n g i t through the c r i m i n a l p r o c e s s w i l l not expose t h a t p r o c e s s t o severe q u a l i t a t i v e o r quantitative strains. (6) There are no reasonable a l t e r n a t i v e s t o the c r i m i n a l sanction f o r dealing with i t . Applying practices, abortion  obscene  and  sanctions. appropriate social  these  criteria,  publications,  gambling  He  felt  field  he  should that  in  not  to  s a n c t i o n s , because o f  that  prostitution,  gambling  which  concluded  be in  subject  drug to  particular  experiment  i t s relatively  with low  sexual use,  criminal was  an  alternate opprobrium  r e l a t i v e to other vices.(44) The work of Schur, use  o f the  criminal  law  Packer and o t h e r s on the a p p r o p r i a t e i s i n many r e s p e c t s l e s s a b s t r a c t  than the a n a l y s e s of the l e g a l p h i l o s o p h e r s , b e i n g based e m p i r i c a l data and  offering  on  s p e c i f i c p o l i c y proposals. This  development i s taken a step f u r t h e r by M o r r i s and Hawkins i n  43 Packer, 44 I b i d a t  s u p r a f n . 38 a t 353.  296.  95  The  Honest  title  P o l i t i c i a n ' s Guide t o Crime C o n t r o l . ( 4 5 ) As  suggests,  pragmatic,  though  debates o f  the  over-reach  of  greater  the  the  this  book  informed  by  they  law  are  were  probably  inflation  decriminalization  and  of  the  emphasized  in  the  work  reflects  the  fact  economic  of  existing  to the  that  much other  by  the  being replaced  recession.  revenues f o r the  of  law  enforcement, but  Hawkins  the  law  costs  and  In  by  o p p o r t u n i t y not o n l y t o reduce the scope o f the c r i m i n a l the  Morris  a  an  cut  gambling  theoretical  saw  and  of  essentially  the  c l o s i n g y e a r s of the decade, a f f l u e n c e was rampant  is  f i n a n c i a l costs  criminal  that  which  of  clearly  1960s. The  extent  analysts,  thrust  its  also  to  generate  state:(46)  We do not face a choice between abolishing or l e g a l i z i n g gambling; the c h o i c e i s between leaving gambling and the v a s t p r o f i t s which accrue from i t i n the hands of c r i m i n a l s o r c i t i z e n s t a k i n g i t over and running i t f o r the b e n e f i t of s o c i e t y or, by l i c e n s i n g and t a x a t i o n measures, c o n t r o l l i n g i t . In  other  revenues  words, could  c r i m i n a l law. however,  they a  that  an  increase  effect  of  As w i l l be d i s c u s s e d  i n the  following  maintain  that  these  fiscal  a  in  beneficial  others  be  argue  state  streamlined section,  benefits  have  been the primary cause i n the d e c r i m i n a l i z a t i o n of gambling.  45  (Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, 1970).  46 I b i d a t  11.  96  Making and Unmaking C r i m i n a l Law As  the  preceding  pages  indicate,  the  intellectual  c l i m a t e o f t h e 1960s favoured t h e k i n d o f changes t h a t were enacted  i n the Criminal  tempting,  Law  t h e r e f o r e , simply  example  of  enlightened  policy-makers  finally  Amendment  t o view  this  law-making: recognized  A c t , 1969. I t i s enactment  prudent the  and  errors  c r i m i n a l i z a t i o n e f f o r t s and made t h e necessary To  some  extent,  this  i s probably  true.  as an  tolerant of  adjustments.  I t i s , however,  u n l i k e l y t o be t h e s o l e , o r even t h e most c o m p e l l i n g for  t h e government's a c t i o n .  absence  of  similar  past  reason  I f i t was, i t would make t h e  enactments  relative  to  other  vices  p r o b l e m a t i c . There had t o be o t h e r f a c t o r s which i n f l u e n c e d the  legislative  will  process. This  final  s e c t i o n o f t h e chapter  attempt t o i s o l a t e what those o t h e r f a c t o r s might have  been. The  North  American  experience  with  the  criminal  p r o h i b i t i o n o f a l c o h o l consumption a f t e r t h e f i r s t world war has p r o v i d e d an i d e a l o p p o r t u n i t y t o study t h e f a c t o r s which influence limits  t h e making and unmaking o f c r i m i n a l  of  the  criminal  e n l i g h t e n i n g analyses exposes t h e symbolic He  portrays  constitution  One  i s G u s f i e l d ' s Symbolic  of  the  most  Crusade, which  f u n c t i o n s t h a t law reform o f t e n s e r v e s .  t h e enactment of  sanction.  law and t h e  the  o f t h e 18th Amendment  United  States,  which  t o the enacted  P r o h i b i t i o n , as t h e h i g h p o i n t o f t h e s t r u g g l e t o a s s e r t t h e  97  public  dominance  represented  of  19th  century  middle-class  "the v i c t o r y of P r o t e s t a n t over C a t h o l i c ,  over urban, t r a d i t i o n over modernity, the middle both  the  values.  upper and  lower  s t r a t a " . ( 4 7 ) On  between law and s t a t u s , he  the  It  rural  class  over  relationship  observes,(48)  S i n c e governmental a c t i o n s symbolize the p o s i t i o n of groups i n the s t a t u s s t r u c t u r e , seemingly ceremonial or r i t u a l a c t s o f government are o f t e n o f g r e a t importance t o many s o c i a l groups. Issues which seem f o o l i s h or i m p r a c t i c a l items are o f t e n important f o r what they symbolize about the s t y l e or c u l t u r e which i s b e i n g r e c o g n i z e d or derogated. Being a c t s of deference or degradation, the individual finds in governmental a c t i o n t h a t h i s own p e r c e p t i o n s of h i s s t a t u s i n the s o c i e t y are confirmed or r e j e c t e d . The  f a c t t h a t the P r o h i b i t i o n law was  not be  enforced n u l l i f i e d  symbolic  was  honoured i n the breach.  been  the  i t s instrumental  its  notes  import;  respectability  damaging  the  over  symbolic  very  e f f e c t s but  of  systems of e v a s i o n long  status  and  periods social  not  i t s supporters  R e f e r r i n g t o gambling,  that i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d maintained  not and perhaps c o u l d  of  Gusfield  have o f t e n  time  validity  without of  the  l e g a l norms.(49) Applying is  h i s observations  possible to  before  1969  lotteries,  in  interpret relation  the to  t o the legal  Canadian c o n t e x t , i t norms which p r e v a i l e d  gambling,  as s y m b o l i z i n g the dominance of  47 G u s f i e l d , Symbolic I l l i n o i s Press, 1963) 48 I b i d a t  11.  49 I b i d a t  126.  and  particularly  Anglo-Protestant  Crusade (Urbana: U n i v e r s i t y of p.7.  98  values.  As  lotteries attempts or  to  the  were  heavily  w i t h i n the  have  enacted  the  were  flourished. those  previous  of  C r i m i n a l Code singularly  Nonetheless, English  strengthening  scheme  favoured  which  Revolution'.  in  clearly  demonstrate,  Catholic  Quebec,  p r o v i n c e t o evade f e d e r a l  of  took  amended  the  dominant  The  repeal  schemes may  be  Quebec's power place  in  Quebec i n the  p i c t u r e of s o c i a l and  or  unsuccessful.  Canada.  p r o h i b i t i o n of l o t t e r y the  chapters  the  political  l a t e r , Quebec l o s t i t s profound  legislation  Illicit legal  gambling  values the  were  criminal  explained i n part i n Canada's 1960s  1950s has  prohibitions  new  of  but  -  by  political  the  "-Quiet  been d e s c r i b e d as  "a  backwardness".(50) A decade sense o f i n f e r i o r i t y : ( 5 1 )  Everywhere t h e r e was a new s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e , a new sense of d i r e c t i o n , a new sense t h a t Quebec people were h i g h l y competent and q u a l i f i e d , capable o f d e v e l o p i n g an advanced,modern t e c h n o l o g i c a l s o c i e t y based on t h e i r own r e s o u r c e s and t h e i r own a b i l i t i e s . T h i s alone was a major r e v o l u t i o n , from which much e l s e was t o flow. Among these force and  to a  be  reckoned  distinct  francophone achieve  consequences was  50 Stevenson, 1989) p. 99.  in  the  social  I n c r e a s i n g l y , Quebec had  which  Confederation.(52)  emergence of Quebec as  in federal-provincial  enhancement  culture.  changes  with  the  The  had  eluded  i t s grasp  decriminalization  U n f u l f i l l e d Union (3rd ed.)  a  relations status  the  power t o  since  of l o t t e r y  of  before schemes  (Toronto: Gage,  51 F i t z m a u r i c e , Quebec and Canada (London: Hurst, 1985) 55. 52 For a more d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n of t h i s t r a n s f o r m a t i o n see, f o r example, Morin, Quebec v e r s u s Ottawa (Toronto:  p.  99  is  arguably  found  just  one  example  highlights  the  the  process.  repeal  role  The  increased  employment and  effects  of  factors  precipitating  the  United  States  this  pressures.  controls  on  vice  enactment  of  morally  has  new-  the  Galliher  liberalizing  enlightened  though  rationalized  potential.(55)  As  one  not on  Indeed,  i n Canada, the  their and  and  re-opened  beer  in  research  on  of  gambling  in  the  impetus  of  study  had a  many  of  legal  explain little  lot  legalized  grounds of  the for  Cross  legislation  law-making  considerations.(54)  States,  in  on  in  demand  More r e c e n t  focussed  example,  i n Nevada,  the  legalization  Gusfield  played  revenues which a  also  For  law,  factors  strengthened  i n d u s t r y would bring.(53)  economic  expressly  Prohibition  economic  tax  the  United  the  Depression  liquor  economic  of  that  and  with  the  power. Analyzing  the  of  to  areas  to  do  Gusfield,  54 G a l l i h e r a n d C r o s s , M o r a l s (New B r u n s w i c k , N . J . : R u t g e r s  with the  gambling  was  i t s revenue-raising  A u s t r a l i a n commentator notes,  supra f n . 47 a t  do  of  modern  U n i v e r s i t y o f T o r o n t o P r e s s , 1976) and McWhinney, Quebec t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n 1960-1978 ( T o r o n t o : U.T.P., 1 9 7 9 ) . 53  that  -  and  127. L e g i s l a t i o n Without M o r a l i t y U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1983).  55 S e e , f o r e x a m p l e , T h e T w e n t i e t h C e n t u r y F u n d , E a s y M o n e y (New Y o r k : T w e n t i e t h C e n t u r y F u n d , 1 9 7 4 ) and Dombrink, O u t l a w B u s i n e s s m e n (Ph.D. T h e s i s ) ( U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , Berkeley, 1981).  100  i.e.  permissive  - gambling  legislation  i s being  shaped by  p r i n c i p l e s o f economic u t i l i t y : ( 5 6 ) [G]ambling i s i n c r e a s i n g l y b e i n g e v a l u a t e d as t o i t s e x t e r n a l p r o d u c t i v e e f f e c t s . I t must now be seen t o have a t e l e o l o g i c a l purpose - e i t h e r t o generate w e l f a r e revenues, o r t o e r a d i c a t e i l l e g a l gambling, o r t o r e v i t a l i z e a stagnant r e g i o n a l economy. By was  the l a t e  1960s, Canada, l i k e  experiencing  the  onset  most western  of  fiscal  nations,  crisis.(57)  S i g n i f i c a n t l y , t h e C r i m i n a l Law Amendment A c t d i d not simply d e c r i m i n a l i z e l o t t e r y schemes and throw them open t o p r i v a t e e n t e r p r i s e . Rather, they were t o be run by o r on b e h a l f o f the  government,  benefits  to  federal  public  or  provincial,  coffers,  or  they  with were  concomitant to  provide  a d d i t i o n a l o r a l t e r n a t e sources o f revenue f o r c h a r i t a b l e o r religious these  o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Perhaps t h e moral  forms  perceived  of  gambling  economic  was  benefits  as  much  as i t was  a of  redefinition of result  of i t s  philosophically  e n l i g h t e n e d lawmaking.  The criminal  explanation  f o r the  law i n r e l a t i o n  contraction  to lottery  of  the  role  schemes i s undoubtedly  m u l t i - d i m e n s i o n a l . The f o r e g o i n g d i s c u s s i o n has attempted t o 56 M c M i l l e n , "The S t i n g : S t a t e R e g u l a t i o n o f Gambling", Unpublished paper presented t o t h e 3rd Law and S o c i e t y Conference i n Canberra, 1985. 57 F o r a d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n o f t h i s e r a see O'Connor, The F i s c a l C r i s i s o f t h e S t a t e (New York: S t M a r t i n ' s P r e s s , 1973) .  101  explore at  least  provide  measure  a  some of of  change took p l a c e . decriminalization now  turns  to  r e d u c t i o n i n the a  federal  nothing', controlling the  legal  this  Having examined the  how  and  why  lottery  of  legal  criminal  government,  impact and,  behaviour the  particularly  in  have  a  broader  entails  another  remainder of  impact t h i s change has and  thesis  *doing  responsibility onto  had,  the  A  law, can  transfers  areas of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  of  consequences.  because i t r a r e l y  merely targeted  its  to  legal  schemes i n Canada, the  system. A c c o r d i n g l y ,  w i l l a s s e s s the the  why  scope of the  often the  to  examination  system  constitutional  understanding  aspects i n order  as  of  an  i t s different  for  branch the  thesis  particularly  administrative  law.  of  in  102  C H A P T E R L O T T E R Y S C H E M E S A N D In United  a  study o f the  States  T H E  C O N S T I T U T I O N O F  law  o f gambling  government,  i t was  reform "of the h e a r t " , t h a t .... consequences any  issue  be  F O U R  astutely  law,  the c o n s i d e r a t i o n  remaining c h a p t e r s w i l l  examining some o f the more s i g n i f i c a n t of  lottery  i t s implications  schemes  f o r the  legal rules, i t s constitutional  f o r the  observed  i s , o f gambling  out by  body o f law."(2) The  being  conducted  i n the e x t r e m i t i e s " , and t h a t  worked  decriminalization  CANADA(1)  that  "may  have  "seldom  can  of only  one  be devoted t o  consequences  i n Canada,  c o u n t r y ' s most  o f the  the  first  fundamental  law.  J u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r Gambling Almost allocation  from of  the  powers  outset between  of the  Confederation, with i t s federal  l e v e l s o f government, the power t o l e g i s l a t e gambling has been the  first  and  i n r e l a t i o n to  a c o n t e n t i o u s i s s u e . As was  chapter,  two  years  after  the  provincial  discussed i n  passage  of  the  B r i t i s h N o r t h A m e r i c a A c t (now the C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t , the  province  of  Quebec  enacted A n A c t t o A m e n d  t h e  1 Some o f t h e ideas i n t h i s c h a p t e r were f i r s t developed i n an a r t i c l e w r i t t e n by the author and a co-author: Osborne and Campbell, "Recent Amendments t o Canadian L o t t e r y and Gaming Laws e t c . " , (1988) 26 Osaoode H a l l Law J o u r n a l 19. 2 U.S. Department o f J u s t i c e . L.E.A.A. The development the Law o f Gambling 1776-1976 (Washington, D.C: U.S. Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1977) p. 933.  of  L a w s  103  Respecting  Bazaars  and  permissive  i n nature,  Lotteries.(3) effectively  This  statute  repealing  was  prohibitory  c o l o n i a l enactments w i t h i n t h e p r o v i n c e , and i t continued t o be  enforced  despite  subsequent  federal  legislation  of a  c o n t r a r y t e n o r . ( 4 ) From 1869 t o 1892, t h e Quebec government i g n o r e d t h e f e d e r a l p r o h i b i t i o n o f l o t t e r i e s , r e l y i n g on t h e p r o v i n c e ' s more l i b e r a l p r o v i s i o n s . Shortly before  t h e C r i m i n a l Code was enacted i n 1892,  however, t h e v a l i d i t y in  the courts,  o f t h e Quebec s t a t u t e was  albeit  at a  Harper,(5) t h e A c t Respecting t o be u l t r a that did  rather  not f a l l  being  within  I n R. v .  L o t t e r i e s and Bazaars was h e l d  v i r e s the province.  lotteries,  low l e v e l .  challenged  The defendants had argued  misdemeanours under the criminal  t h e common law,  law power g i v e n  t o the  f e d e r a l government i n s.91(27) o f t h e B r i t i s h North America Act,  1867 (now t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t ,  left  this  had  i s s u e open, d e c i d i n g t h a t  1867) . The m a g i s t r a t e t h e f e d e r a l government  enacted a n t i - l o t t e r y l e g i s l a t i o n under "the power which  i s e x p r e s s l y g i v e n t o i t t o pass laws t o m a i n t a i n good  order  i n Canada, which,  besides,  peace and  i s inherent  to  its  3 S.Q. 1869, c.36. I t p r o v i d e d t h a t , "Notwithstanding every p r o v i s i o n t o t h e c o n t r a r y " l o t t e r i e s and bazaars may be h e l d where t h e i r o b j e c t i s t o a s s i s t r e l i g i o u s , c h a r i t a b l e o r e d u c a t i o n a l e s t a b l i s h m e n t s ; "provided t h e t h i n g s o f f e r e d o r t o be d i s p o s e d o f by l o t t e r y do not c o n s i s t o f sums o f money, notes, bank-notes, bonds, debentures o r other n e g o t i a b l e s e c u r i t i e s o f l i k e nature." 4 e.g. The L o t t e r i e s Amendment A c t , S.C. 1883, c.36. 5  (1892) 15 The Legal News 179 (Quebec M a g i s t r a t e s  Court).  104  constitution legislation Parliament  and was  its a  sovereign  dead  enacted  the  letter  Criminal  power."(6) and,  Code,  The  shortly  Quebec  thereafter,  including  i n i t the  p r o h i b i t i o n o f l o t t e r i e s and o t h e r forms of gaming. This  initial  jurisdictional  tussle  over  lotteries  and  bazaars i l l u s t r a t e s the r e a l i t y o f f e d e r a l i s m i n Canada. The division  of  powers  between  a  central  and  regional  governments i s g e n e r a l l y regarded as an e s s e n t i a l f e a t u r e of a f e d e r a l c o n s t i t u t i o n . ( 7 ) One  o b s e r v e r notes t h a t  federalism,  of  throughout  characterized  by  most  conflict  and  its  history,  controversy  Canadian has  been  regarding  the  d i v i s i o n of powers. F e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l governments have sought  t o expand  their  another's  expense,  and  other  poaching  on  of  sphere have the  of l e g i s l a t i v e  not  infrequently  power  guaranteed  power a t accused them  by  one each the  constitution.(8) The years  i s s u e of j u r i s d i c t i o n over gaming re-emerged later  supplementary were  after  number  of  measures t o curb gambling  perceived  6 Ibid at  a  to  be  inadequate  provinces  fifty  enacted  i n the f a c e o f what  federal  controls.  For  185.  7 e.g. Dicey, I n t r o d u c t i o n t o the Study o f the Law o f the C o n s t i t u t i o n 10th ed. (London: Macmillan, 1961, p. 151 and Wheare, F e d e r a l Government 4th ed. (New York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1964) p. 10. 8 Stevenson, "The D i v i s i o n of Powers" i n Simeon (ed.) D i v i s i o n of Powers and P u b l i c P o l i c y (Toronto: U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto Press, 1985) pp. 71-123 a t 71.  105  example,  i n 1942, t h e L e g i s l a t u r e o f O n t a r i o  passed  the  Gaming and B e t t i n g Act,(9) which p r o v i d e d t h a t a c o u r t may, on  application,  year,  order  o f premises  conviction  under  bookmaking previous  the c l o s i n g  i n respect the  provisions  f o r a p e r i o d o f up t o a  o f which  disorderly  there  house,  o f the Criminal  t h r e e months. Where a c l o s i n g  had been betting  Code, order  a  and  within the was made and  the premises were t h e r e a f t e r used i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e o r d e r , the  registered  owner  and any person  found  therein a t the  time were deemed t o have v i o l a t e d t h e o r d e r and were g u i l t y of  an o f f e n c e .  relied  on  province. Court  In e n a c t i n g  i t s jurisdiction I n R.  o f Appeal  invalid,  being  found  exposed  t h e accused  Accordingly, which  property  t h e Gaming  was  which  violated  t o punishment, already  t h e Court  operated  over  an  the province  rights  however,  i n the  the Ontario  and B e t t i n g A c t t o be  an encroachment on t h e f e d e r a l  The a c t i v i t y  house,  legislation,  v . Lamontagne,(10)  power.  gaming  this  c r i m i n a l law  the c l o s i n g e.g. keeping  offence  under  o r d e r and a the  common Code.  c h a r a c t e r i z e d t h e A c t as a s t a t u t e  essentially  as  criminal  law  in a  field  a l r e a d y covered by t h e C r i m i n a l Code.(11)  9 S.O. 1942, c.19. 10  [1945] 4 D.L.R. 161 (Ont. C.A.).  11 F o r f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n o f t h i s case see A b e l , L a s k i n ' s Canadian C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Law 4 t h ed. (Toronto: C a r s w e l l , 1975) p. 369.  106  The the in  Supreme Court o f Canada was f i r s t  i s s u e o f t h e power t o l e g i s l a t e 1954 i n J o h n s o n v  . A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l f o r Alberta.(12) i n t h i s i n s t a n c e was t h e  S l o t M a c h i n e A c t o f Alberta,(13)  and  could  courts.  The  exercise  incapable  therefore  which p r o v i d e d  o f ownership w i t h i n  be c o n f i s c a t e d  province  maintained  that  that  o f i t s powers over p r o p e r t y  this  was  and c i v i l  dealt  Deploring that  province  a  valid  in ss.92(13) was r e j e c t e d by  Mr. J u s t i c e Rand s t a t e d t h a t t h e C r i m i n a l C o d e  comprehensively  provincial  slot  r i g h t s and  9 2 ( 1 6 ) of the B . N . A . A c t . This contention  the m a j o r i t y .  that  on a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e  matters o f a l o c a l and p r i v a t e nature c o n t a i n e d and  with  i n r e l a t i o n t o gambling  p r o v i n c i a l s t a t u t e being c h a l l e n g e d  machines were  confronted  statute, this  any l o c a l  with  which  attempt  the  was p a t e n t l y  to displace  legislation  subject  matter  that  of the  o f gambling.  t h e C o d e , he concluded  o f a supplementary  nature  that  would tend t o weaken o r confuse t h a t enforcement would be an i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h t h e e x c l u s i v e power o f Parliament.(14) The  12  [1954] S.C.R. 127.  13 R.S.A. 1942, c.333. S e v e r a l o f t h e other p r o v i n c e s had a l s o enacted l e g i s l a t i o n d i r e c t e d towards s l o t machines i n the 1920s and 1930s. They had mixed success a t s u r v i v i n g c o n s t i t u t i o n a l challenges a t the l e v e l of the p r o v i n c i a l a p p e l l a t e c o u r t : i n R . v . K a r m i n o s , [1936] 2 D.L.R. 353, t h e Saskatchewan Court o f Appeal s t r u c k down t h a t p r o v i n c e ' s s l o t machine s t a t u t e ; i n R . v . L a n e , [1937] 1 D.L.R. 212, however, t h e Supreme Court o f New Brunswick found s i m i l a r s l o t machine l e g i s l a t i o n t o be w i t h i n t h e l e g i s l a t i v e competence o f t h e p r o v i n c e . 14 S u p r a f n . 12 a t 138.  T  107  opinion  expressed  by  Mr.  Justice  Locke  was  even  more  emphatic:(15) The determination o f t h i s matter does not, in my opinion, depend alone upon the fact that i f the p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n was l a w f u l l y enacted t h e r e would be a d i r e c t c l a s h w i t h the terms o f the C r i m i n a l C o d e ; r a t h e r i t i s my o p i n i o n t h a t the main reason i s t h a t the e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o l e g i s l a t e i n r e l a t i o n t o gaming l i e s w i t h Parliament under head (27) o f s.91. The  most  recent  f i e l d o f gaming was  attempt  The  whereby the of  the  becoming  brief  to  enter  the  t a x " scheme i n s t i t u t e d  which was  b r i e f l y discussed  p u b l i c c o u l d become v o l u n t a r y  making to  monthly  by in  the  characterized  i t as  contravention  of  in  a  taxpayers  of  monthly  $2,  a barely disguised Supreme Court  such,  the  striking  prohibition  of  thus  draw  form of s i l v e r i n g o t s . I t was  t h a t t h i s was  judgement,  contributions  participate  p r i z e s i n the  recognized a  by  eligible  valuable  province  c i t y c o u n c i l approved a f u n d - r a i s i n g scheme  general  city  a  the " v o l u n t a r y  the c i t y of Montreal i n 1968, Chapter Two.  by  for  widely  l o t t e r y and,  Canada  i t down  in  officially  as  of  lotteries  the  courts  being  in  in  the  C r i m i n a l Code.(16) From clear  on  1982 the  15 I b i d a t  to  1969,  therefore,  jurisdictional  issue:  legislation  were  quite  relating  to  155.  16 C i t y o f M o n t r e a l v . A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l f o r Q u e b e c , S.C.R. 332. By the time t h i s d e c i s i o n was i s s u e d , l a t e i n 1969, i t had a l r e a d y been overtaken by the amendments t o the C r i m i n a l C o d e p e r m i t t i n g s t a t e - o p e r a t e d and s t a t e - l i c e n s e d l o t t e r y schemes.  [19  108  gaming and of  lotteries  Parliament.  C r i m i n a l 1985, had  Were  within  i t not  for  C o d e initially  the  exclusive  the  enacted  jurisdiction  express in  1969  terms and  of  the  broadened  i t i s c e r t a i n t h a t p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t u r e s would have no  jurisdiction  schemes. With C o d e , the  the  to  permit  proclamation  jurisdictional  whether the one  was  of the  of  issue  f e d e r a l c r i m i n a l law few  " s u s t a i n the  the  operation  those was  of  lottery  amendments t o  recast  power can,  in  terms  an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  a regulatory  of  i n the words o f  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s c h o l a r s t o a n a l y z e the establishment of  the  issue,  scheme i n which  agency or o f f i c i a l e x e r c i s e s d i s c r e t i o n a r y  authority."(17) It  has  already  decriminalization in  1969  was  not  been  permitted  one  government  only or  the  and  other  t h a t i t was  or  from  the  games of chance would  authorized  what was  of  Parliament  law  where they were conducted by  conducted  model  schemes by  of t o t a l withdrawal of the  government. S p e c i f i c a l l y , provided  that  adopted f o r l o t t e r y  a c t i v i t y . Rather, l o t t e r i e s be  noted  by  a  the  federal  provincial  then S.179A o f the C o d e  lawful  "(a) f o r the Government of Canada t o conduct and manage a l o t t e r y scheme i n accordance w i t h r e g u l a t i o n s made by the Governor i n C o u n c i l ... (b) f o r the government of a p r o v i n c e ... t o conduct and manage a l o t t e r y scheme ... i n accordance w i t h any law enacted by the l e g i s l a t u r e o f t h a t p r o v i n c e ... (c) f o r a c h a r i t a b l e or r e l i g i o u s o r g a n i z a t i o n , under the a u t h o r i t y of a l i c e n c e i s s u e d by the Lieutenant17 Hogg, C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Law C a r s w e l l , 1985) p. 415.  of Canada 2nd  ed.  (Toronto:  in  109 Governor i n C o u n c i l ... t o conduct and manage a l o t t e r y scheme i n t h a t p r o v i n c e ... (d) f o r an a g r i c u l t u r a l f a i r o r e x h i b i t i o n ... under the a u t h o r i t y o f a l i c e n c e i s s u e d by the LieutenantGovernor i n C o u n c i l ... t o conduct and manage a l o t t e r y scheme i n t h a t p r o v i n c e ... and (e) f o r any person, under the a u t h o r i t y o f a l i c e n c e i s s u e d by the Lieutenant-Governor i n C o u n c i l ... t o conduct and manage a l o t t e r y scheme a t a p u b l i c p l a c e o f amusement i n t h a t p r o v i n c e ... Whereas  Abel  states  r e l a t i o n t o c r i m i n a l law new  crimes, but  criminal  at  proscribed seems  withdrawal o f the that  the  courts  to law.  have  or the  large part,  establishment which had by  the  the of  of  conduct which was  simplicity  situations  where  Hogg, on the consistently  other struck  do  of  these  18 A b e l ,  examples  on  s u p r a f n . 11 a t  the  basis  is  a  total  hand, p o i n t s down  out  regulatory  regulatory  what  it  that  could  they  the  agencies  indirect  d i r e c t l y . ( 2 0 ) S e c t i o n 1 7 9 A of the C o d e can from  was  his position  r e f e r s concerned  federally constituted  to  of  of the c r i m i n a l law.(19)  cases t o which he  government  in  subsequently  there  broad d i s c r e t i o n a r y powers i n an federal  authority  o n l y the c r e a t i o n  which  schemes s e t up w i t h i n the c o n f i n e s In  federal  legalization  criminal,(18)  suited  the  comprises not  Confederation  as  best  a l s o the  that  be  attempt not  do  distinguished  enable  the  825.  19 Hogg, s u p r a f n . 17 a t 416-7.  20 e.g. A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l o f O n t a r i o v . R e c i p r o c a l I n s [1924] A.C. 328 (P.C.) which s t r u c k down a s e c t i o n o f the C r i m i n a l C o d e making i t an o f f e n c e t o c a r r y on the b u s i n e s s of insurance without a l i c e n c e from the f e d e r a l M i n i s t e r of Finance on the grounds t h a t i t encroached on p r o v i n c i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n to regulate industry within a province.  110  exercise  of  provincial  jurisdiction  rather  than  encroach  upon i t . ( 2 1 ) Nonetheless,  Hogg a l s o  the C o d e , i n c l u d i n g the which  certain  dispensation concludes the  they he  exempts from the held  is  i s granted  examples  contest  lottery  conduct  that  examines s e v e r a l  to  too  cites  scheme e n a b l i n g  prohibited, an  but  are  open t o  are  s . 8 3 of  or under the  f o r the  control  f i g h t i n g "any  which has  Canada,(24) those  approved  abortion The of the  l e g i s l a t u r e of  of  within  a  exempted by  from a  the  province".  boxing  a  of  province  Section.287,  Supreme Court  prohibition  provincially  which  established  of the  the  of  authority  authority  r e c e n t l y been i n v a l i d a t e d by  and  Two  C o d e , (23)  p e r m i s s i o n o r under the  sport  of  authority  an a t h l e t i c board o r commission or s i m i l a r body by  in  power  c r i t i c i s m . (22) the  of  section, a  administrative  p r o h i b i t i o n of p r i z e  w i t h the  provisions  of  regulated  of  abortions, therapeutic  committee. c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f t h i s l a t t e r p r o v i s i o n i n terms  d i v i s i o n of powers was  challenged  i n one  o f a number  21 I t should be noted t h a t the p r o v i s i o n which a l l o w e d f e d e r a l r e g u l a t i o n of l o t t e r i e s i n the form o f a s t a t e conducted scheme was r e p e a l e d i n 1985. T h i s amendment w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l i n f r a . 22 Hogg, s u p r a fn.17 23 R.S.C. 1985,  at  417.  C.C-42.  24 In R . v . M o r g e n t a l e r e t a l . , (1988) 37 OC.C. the s e c t i o n was found t o contravene s . 7 of the C a n a d i a n C h a r t e r o f R i g h t s a n d F r e e d o m s .  (3d)  449,  Ill  of  cases  involving  instance,  the  Dr.  challenge  alone addressed h i m s e l f government  could  regulation approach  i t to  taken  by  too  broad  1 1  dismissed.  t o the  Abel  and  since  Chief  conduct  by  stated  that  this  Justice  i s s u e o f whether the  federal  transferring adopted  the may  c r i m i n a l as w e l l as what i s , and  may  o r exemptions i n i t s c r i m i n a l  In Hogg's view, t h i s i t would  permit  nullified  i n the  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n seems  the  kind  scheme-in-the-guise-of-criminal-law consistently  In  "Parliament  dispensations  (26)  The  a p r o v i n c i a l body. L a s k i n  determine what i s not  legislation.  was  Morgentaler.(25)  decriminalize  of  hence i n t r o d u c e  Henry  of  which  past.  Regarding  regulatoryhas  been  the  lottery  scheme p r o v i s i o n , he expresses no o p i n i o n as t o i t s v a l i d i t y beyond t h i s g e n e r a l not apply,  caveat.(27) Instead,  he p o s i t s , but  does  a t e s t of " c o l o u r a b i l i t y " : ( 2 8 )  [T]he more e l a b o r a t e the r e g u l a t o r y scheme, the more likely i t i s that the Court will classify the d i s p e n s a t i o n o r exemption as being r e g u l a t o r y r a t h e r than c r i m i n a l . The and  reality  other  generally  games  of the of  chance  happy w i t h the  at present,  26 I b i d a t pp.  that  i t . One  could  the  626-27. 417.  lotteries  provinces  have no  616.  are  interest,  conclude t h a t ,  Queen [1976] 1 S.C.R.  27 Hogg, supra f n . 17 a t Ibid.  is  arrangement and  i n challenging  25 Morgentaler v. The  28  s i t u a t i o n i n r e l a t i o n to  in  112  this  instance,  the  end  is  seen  as  justifying  j u r i s d i c t i o n a l l y dubious means by which i t was  the  achieved.  The I n t e r d e l e q a t i o n o f Power Apart from the d i v i s i o n o f powers i s s u e , t h e r e i s a l s o a  question  federal way  t o be  addressed  regarding  government has the power  that  lottery  i t d i d , i . e . by  schemes  whether  not t h e  t o act i n the p a r t i c u l a r  transferring  t o the p r o v i n c e s .  or  the  control  In examining t h i s  over issue,  one must bear i n mind not o n l y the 1969 amendment, but a l s o the  further  divest  amendment o f 1985,  the f e d e r a l  lottery  schemes.  authorize  government  the r e s u l t  of a l l authority  In o t h e r words,  lotteries  and  other  o f which was  t h e power  to  to  operate  t o conduct  and  games o f chance became the  e x c l u s i v e domain o f the p r o v i n c e s . To an i n c r e a s i n g extent, l e g i s l a t i v e b o d i e s a r e unable t o enact a l l necessary l e g i s l a t i o n f o r e f f e c t i v e government. They a r e , as the Law Reform Commission o f Canada has p o i n t e d out, (29) unable adequate between  to deal  detail enacting  thus  with  necessitating  statutes  making. Consequently,  a l l the p e r t i n e n t  and  intermediate  individualized  issues i n measures decision-  the p a t t e r n which has e v o l v e d  i s for  29 Law Reform Commission o f Canada, Report #26: Independent A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Agencies (Ottawa: L.R.C.C., 1985) p. 17.  113  Parliament  or  a  provincial  skeletal statutory body the  power t o  strategy  permits  provisions  scheme and enact  to  administrative  general games of  flexibility  exemptions chance,  are  the  leaving  in  and  a  legislative  applying  the  a  broad faster  experimentation.(31)  prohibition  Parliament has  outlined  of  lotteries  and  authorization,  licensing  and  e x c e p t i o n s t o the not  This  C r i m i n a l C o d e ,  from  legislate  circumstances,  response, i n n o v a t i o n  c o n t r o l of the however,  details.(30)  changing  In s . 2 0 7 of the  to  then d e l e g a t e t o a s u b o r d i n a t e  the  greater  legislature  subordinate  p r o v i n c e s . ( 3 2 ) The to  the  federal  latter,  authority.  Rather, they are c o - o r d i n a t e or equal i n s t a t u s . ( 3 3 ) Unlike Canadian  the  Australian  constitution  between f e d e r a l and there the  is  in  fact  inclusion  of  no  express  power  there of  a  constitutional  the  term  government,  prohibition  "exclusively" 1 8 6 7 ,  precludes  the  which  is  in  the  interdelegation  p r o v i n c i a l a u t h o r i t i e s . One  C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t , federal  constitution,  in  view i s t h a t against  it:  s . 9 1 of  the  describes  the  authorization  of  powers of a  30 T h i s was j u d i c i a l l y approved i n H o d g e v . T h e Q u e e n (1883) 8 A.C. 117 (P.C.). 31 Jones and de V i l l a r s , P r i n c i p l e s of A d m i n i s t r a t i v e (Toronto: C a r s w e l l , 1985) p. 58.  Law  32 The d e t a i l s of the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e mechanisms which have been s e t up by the p r o v i n c e s i n u t i l i z i n g t h e i r powers under s . 2 0 7 w i l l be examined i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l i n Chapter 6 i n f r a . 33 Hogg, s u p r a f n . 17 a t  80.  114  delegation  of  legislative  including a provincial  power  t o any i n s t r u m e n t a l i t y ,  l e g i s l a t u r e . ( 3 4 ) The c o u r t s , though,  have been somewhat more ambivalent,  moving from an a b s o l u t e  r e j e c t i o n o f t h e i n t e r d e l e g a t i o n o f l e g i s l a t i v e power t o t h e c r e a t i o n of exceptions. In  C.P.R. v . Notre  Lord Watson endorsed  Dame de Bonsecours,  f o r example,  t h e f o l l o w i n g statement:(35)  The Dominion cannot give jurisdiction, or leave jurisdiction, with the province. The provincial p a r l i a m e n t cannot g i v e l e g i s l a t i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o t h e Dominion p a r l i a m e n t . I f they have i t , e i t h e r one o r t h e o t h e r o f them, they have i t by v i r t u e o f t h e A c t o f 1867. I t h i n k we must g e t r i d o f t h e i d e a t h a t e i t h e r one o r t h e o t h e r can e n l a r g e t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e o t h e r o r surrender j u r i s d i c t i o n . A  Royal  Commission  on  Dominion-Provincial  Relations  r e p o r t i n g i n 1940 supported t h e i d e a o f d e l e g a t i o n , ( 3 6 ) but, a  decade  later,  interdelegation provincial  of  the powers  legislature  as  Supreme  Court  between  rejected  Parliament  unconstitutional.(37)  c a l l e d Nova S c o t i a I n t e r d e l e g a t i o n case,  and  an a  The s o -  i n Hogg's o p i n i o n ,  34 D r i e d g e r , "The I n t e r a c t i o n o f F e d e r a l and P r o v i n c i a l Law", (1976) 54 Canadian Bar Review 695 a t 698. 35 [1899] A.C. 367 (P.C.) a t 373. T h i s was a remark made i n argument. Although not t e c h n i c a l l y b i n d i n g , i t has been h i g h l y p e r s u a s i v e i n subsequent cases. 36 C i t e d i n A b e l , supra f n . 11 a t 2. A more r e c e n t government-commissioned study took a s i m i l a r p o s i t i o n : Canada. Task Force on Canadian U n i t y , A f u t u r e Together: Recommendations o f t h e t a s k Force on Canadian U n i t y (Ottawa, 1979) p. 104. 37 A t t o r n e y General f o r Nova S c o t i a v . A t t o r n e y General f o r Canada [1951] S.C.R. 31.  115  was  based  disturb  on  the  the  view  scheme  Constitution s h o u l d not  the  Act,  be  absence  of  the  1867.  permitted of  that  such  interdelegation  d i s t r i b u t i o n of  Parliament to  explicit  and  agree t o  powers  the  was  to  have  a  i t soon became c l e a r restricted  s t a t u t e a t i s s u e concerned the  with  respect  to  jurisdiction. to  receive  relation  employment  Reciprocally, from  to  j u r i s d i c t i o n . (39) interdelegation  the  Parliament  employment  in  in  What  this  was  the  P.E.I. Marketing upheld  a  Nova  Scotia  the  provincial  under  to  industries  provincial  Legislature make under  struck  down  precise  Board v.  delegation  of  power  in  federal; was  an this  Supreme Court made i t c l e a r  extent H.B.  was  laws  o f l e g i s l a t i v e power. W i t h i n a y e a r o f  d e c i s i o n b e i n g handed down, the that  areas  power  was  decision  power t o l e g i s l a t e  Nova S c o t i a  the  There  o f powers between  l e g i s l a t i v e b o d i e s . I t would have a u t h o r i z e d government t o d e l e g a t e t o Parliament the  this  The  delegation  in  implied.(38)  that  application.  the  pattern  authority.  b e i n g none, the Court would a l l o w none t o be Nonetheless,  in  Legislatures  a l t e r that  constitutional  would  of  i t s application.  Willis between  Inc.,(40)  the  Parliament  In  Court and  p r o v i n c i a l l y appointed board. Mr J u s t i c e Kerwin stated,(41) 38 Hogg, supra f n . 17 a t  296.  39 R u s s e l l , Leading C o n s t i t u t i o n a l D e c i s i o n s (Ottawa: C a r l e t o n U.P., 1984) p.470-71. 40  [1952] 2 S.C.R.  41 I b i d a t  405.  392.  3rd  ed.  a  116 Having been v a l i d l y e s t a b l i s h e d by the L e g i s l a t u r e , [the p r o v i n c i a l board] has the c a p a c i t y t o r e c e i v e and accept the a u t h o r i t y a u t h o r i z e d by P a r l i a m e n t t o be c o n f e r r e d upon i t by the Governor-General i n C o u n c i l . The  Court  executive federal  r a t i o n a l i z e d that, officers  for  government  i n s t e a d . The  rather  carrying  had  than  out  simply  Accordingly, o f whether or not  the the  question  a  own the  provincial  characterized  p r i m a r i l y a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r a t h e r than  its  i t s legislation,  chose  r o l e o f t h a t board was  choosing  as  body being  legislative.  t o be  answered becomes  arrangement i n s.207 o f the  one  Criminal  Code i n v o l v e s a p r o s c r i b e d d e l e g a t i o n o f l e g i s l a t i v e powers. The  terms o f s.207(1)(a) e x p l i c i t l y r e q u i r e the enactment of  p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n as a p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r lotteries  and  would  appear  to  come  state-conducted  within  e n u n c i a t e d i n the Nova S c o t i a I n t e r d e l e g a t i o n  the  rule  case:  207.(1) Notwithstanding any of the p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s P a r t r e l a t i n g t o gaming and b e t t i n g , i t i s l a w f u l (a) f o r the government of a p r o v i n c e , e i t h e r alone or i n conjunction w i t h the government o f another p r o v i n c e , t o conduct and manage a l o t t e r y scheme i n t h a t p r o v i n c e , or i n t h a t and the other p r o v i n c e , i n accordance w i t h any law enacted by the l e g i s l a t u r e of t h a t p r o v i n c e ; (emphasis added). The  power d e l e g a t e d  s.207(1)(b)-(d) manage  lottery  to  t o the L i e u t e n a n t licence  schemes,  various  may,  Governor i n C o u n c i l bodies  according  to  to the  conduct wording  s.207(2), a l s o i n v o l v e l e g i s l a t i v e a c t i o n on the p a r t of provincial licence  legislature.  may  Lieutenant  contain  This  such  subsection  terms  and  provides conditions  that as  Governor, o r a person or a u t h o r i t y d e s i g n a t e d  in and of the a the by  117  him/her,  "or  p r o v i n c e may Even  any  law  by  the  legislature  of  that  prescribe".  i f the  s.207(2)  enacted  reference  were t o be  to  ignored,  provincial  legislation  t o come w i t h i n the  in  rule  laid  down i n P . E . I . M a r k e t i n g B o a r d , the L i e u t e n a n t Governor mu be  characterized  as  a  provincial  board  or  agency.  The  c l o s e s t the Supreme Court of Canada has come t o the i s s u e i s in  the  Laskin  A n t i - I n f l a t i o n acknowledged  Parliament to  the  had  the  that  Reference,(42) there  was  power t o d e l e g a t e  Lieutenant  Governor  in  a  where question  legislative  Council,  which had  t o be  judgement  had  but concluded  decided  upheld  t h a t i t was  i n that p a r t i c u l a r  the  delegation  by  Justice  whether authority  made  r e f e r e n c e t o the B r i t i s h Columbia Supreme Court E x p a r t e Kleinys,(43)  Chief  passing  decision in not an  case.  issue  The  Parliament  B.C.  to  the  L i e u t e n a n t Governor o f a p r o v i n c e of powers over the  custody  of  On  insane  reading attached  persons,  of t h i s  case,  i n the  however,  C r i m i n a l C o d e . i t i s c l e a r t h a t the  a g r e a t d e a l of s i g n i f i c a n c e t o the  Lieutenant the  found  Governor had  custody  of  an  insane  C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t ,  inherent  persons  by  s . 6 5 of the  42 R e A n t i - I n f l a t i o n A c t , 43  [1965] 3 C.C.C.  102.  close  judge  fact that  prerogative virtue  a  the  power  over  the  B.C.  of  B . N . A .  A c t and  [1976] 2 S.C.R. 373  the  T e r  a t 430-1.  118  Union,  (1872). In o t h e r words, s/he d i d not a c t u a l l y d e r i v e  t h a t power from t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e C r i m i n a l Code:(44) The Crown as parens p a t r i a e i s e n t i t l e d , by i t s i n h e r e n t p r e r o g a t i v e , t o t h e custody o f a l l insane persons, f o r t h e purpose o f p r o t e c t i n g t h e community. I t i s extremely d o u b t f u l t h a t a p r e r o g a t i v e power t o l i c e n c e l o t t e r y schemes c o u l d be s i m i l a r l y maintained. Consequently, Ex p a r t e K l e i n y s has q u e s t i o n a b l e  a p p l i c a t i o n i n the context  o f s.207 o f t h e Code. The  actual  considered it  was  delegation  by t h e c o u r t s  decided  of  power  in  s.207  has  been  i n o n l y one i n s t a n c e t o date,  without  reference  Lieutenant  Governor. In R. v. Furtney  appealed  the  respondents'  to  the  role  e t al.,(45)  acquittals  on  c o u n s e l l i n g t h e conduct o f bingo o p e r a t i o n s  of  and the  t h e Crown  charges  of  i n a manner not  a u t h o r i z e d pursuant t o s.207, i . e . i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e terms and  conditions  and  Corporate  judge  had  Parliament  issued  by t h e O n t a r i o  Relations.  acquitted  them  At  trial,  on  the b a s i s ,  i n s.207 had improperly  the p r o v i n c i a l  on  the  argument  analogous t o t h a t  of Ontario  that  the  inter  delegated  law power t o t h e p r o v i n c e s . On appeal, o f t h e Supreme Court  M i n i s t r y o f Consumer court  alia,  that  i t s criminal  Mr. J u s t i c e Campbell  r e v e r s e d t h i s f i n d i n g based  scheme  provided  in  s.207  is  s e t up under t h e f e d e r a l F i s h e r i e s A c t ,  44 I b i d a t 105, p e r Ruttan J . , q u o t i n g (1854), 2 N.S.R. 322.  from R. v. M a r t i n  45 Unreported d e c i s i o n , Supreme Court o f O n t a r i o , 13/9/88. T h i s d e c i s i o n i s not b e i n g appealed.  119  which had  been r e c e n t l y  Appeal  Re  in  Peralta  upheld  et  by  the  a l . , and  O n t a r i o e t a l . ( 4 6 ) In Mr.  p r o v i n c i a l Court  the  Queen  in  right  of of  J u s t i c e Campbell's understanding,  [ i t ] upheld the d e l e g a t i o n i n the f e d e r a l F i s h e r i e s R e g u l a t i o n s of power t o a p r o v i n c i a l m i n i s t e r t o i s s u e f i s h i n g l i c e n c e s and t o impose terms and conditions. The court held that the effect of the federal r e g u l a t i o n s was t o s e t g e n e r a l p o l i c y and i n s e t t i n g individual fishing quotas within those policy g u i d e l i n e s the p r o v i n c i a l m i n i s t e r was acting in a manner c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the r e g u l a t i o n s . This  is  a  misreading  of  Re  Peralta  d e a l i n g w i t h the nature of the regulations that  the  made thereunder.  fishing  Minister  pursuant  enactments.(47) scheme s e t Criminal  1867,  Re  were  federal  brief  under  Peralta  actually  inserted  of  gives  provincial  legislation,  not  provincial  Fisheries  fisheries  Accordingly,  the  "Sea  of  Act  is  the  Coast  by  Reference,(48) but  the  i t was (2d)  705.  the  to  a  matter  Constitution  of Act,  jurisdiction  Inland  to  Fisheries".  enacted. The Council  the  juncture.  clearly  and  Privy  pointed  legislative  comparative  exclusive  F i s h e r i e s Act was  confirmed  confirmed  the  Parliament  regarding  the  by  examination  the  decisions  f e d e r a l F i s h e r i e s Act and  competence under s.91(12) o f which  was  A  regulation  legislate  so  up  to  other  Code arrangement i s u s e f u l a t t h i s  The federal  quotas  and  in  power t o  do  Fisheries  out t h a t the s.91(12) head  46  (1985) 49 O.R.  (Ont.C.A.).  47  I b i d a t 716,  per MacKinnon A.C.J.O.  48  [1898] A.C.  700.  120  of  power  did  not  fisheries.  Thus,  province,  the  fisheries  under  confer  where  fishing  province the  p u b l i c lands.(49)  proprietary  may  rights  rights are  legislate  provincial  power  owned  in  to  over  the  by  the  relation  to  manage  and  sell  As one observer notes, t h i s o v e r l a p p i n g o f  a u t h o r i t y has been r e s o l v e d i n p r a c t i c e by t h e d e l e g a t i o n o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e - as opposed t o l e g i s l a t i v e - powers from t h e federal  to  the  provincial  l e g i s l a t i o n which Council  governments.  Parliament  enacts  i n c l u d e s a d e l e g a t i o n t o t h e Governor i n  (not t h e L i e u t e n a n t  Governor  i n Council)  t o make  r e g u l a t i o n s f o r c a r r y i n g out the purposes and p r o v i s i o n s o f the  Act,(50)  and  then,  i n conjunction  with  each  province,  enacts r e g u l a t i o n s which are a d m i n i s t e r e d by t h e o f f i c e r s o f a  provincial  ministry.(51)  Thus,  R e g u l a t i o n s ,  f o r example,  administered  a  by  provincial  the  O n t a r i o  are a c t u a l l y body.  They  F i s h e r y  federal regulations are  provincial  r e g u l a t i o n s i n name only, but f e d e r a l enactments i n law,(52) and cannot be a s s a i l e d as being u l t r a v i r e s t h e p r o v i n c e s . The c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f t h i s arrangement was upheld i n R e S h o a l  L a k e Band,(53)  which was  cited  approvingly  in R e  49 C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t , 1 8 6 7 , s . 9 2 ( 5 ) . 50 F i s h e r i e s A c t , R.S.C. 1985, c.F-14, s.43. 51 Pibus, "The F i s h e r i e s A c t and N a t i v e F i s h i n g R i g h t s i n Canada: 1970-1980", (1981) 39 U n i v e r s i t y o f Toronto F a c u l t y of Law Review 42 a t 44. 52 C o n s o l i d a t e d R e g u l a t i o n s o f C a n a d a , 1978, 53 (1978) 25 O.R.(2d) 334(Ont.H.Ct.) Cory J . h e l d t h a t the f e d e r a l F i s h e r i e s A c t adopted t h e machinery p r o v i d e d by t h e  c  121  Peralta  and  also  i n a more r e c e n t  decision  of  the  Court o f Appeal, R. v. Agawa,(54) i n which i t was  Ontario  stated,  the learned summary c o n v i c t i o n appeal c o u r t judge t r e a t e d the O n t a r i o F i s h e r y R e g u l a t i o n s as i f they were p r o v i n c i a l laws s u b j e c t t o Indian t r e a t y r i g h t s because they are administered by p r o v i n c i a l o f f i c i a l s . The d e l e g a t i o n o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a u t h o r i t y over the O n t a r i o Fishery Regulations is a proper exercise of P a r l i a m e n t ' s l e g i s l a t i v e a u t h o r i t y and does not a l t e r t h e i r s t a t u s as f e d e r a l laws. As  will  be  shown  in  Chapter  instruments enacted pursuant t o are  not  issued  in by  the  same mode. They  provincial  drawn between the  officials.  legislative  Six,  s.207 o f are  the  the  regulatory  Criminal  provincial  Accordingly,  schemes i n the  Code  provisions  the  analogy  Fisheries  Act  and  s.207 of the Code i n Furtney e t a l . , i s not a v a l i d  one  and  the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f the l a t t e r remains suspect.(55)  p r o v i n c i a l Game and F i s h A c t by means of the r e g u l a t i o n s and t h a t t h i s was a v a l i d adoption of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a u t h o r i t y . 54  [1988] 3 C.N.L.R. 73.  55 I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t when the o r i g i n a l C r i m i n a l Law Amendment B i l l was c o n s i d e r e d by the C r i m i n a l Law S e c t i o n o f the Commission on U n i f o r m i t y o f L e g i s l a t i o n i n 1968, concerns were expressed i n some q u a r t e r s as t o the a d v i s a b i l i t y o f p r o v i n c i a l as opposed t o f e d e r a l l i c e n s i n g f o r l o t t e r y schemes. A c c o r d i n g l y , i t was suggested t h a t c o n s i d e r a t i o n should be g i v e n t o l i c e n s i n g based on f e d e r a l r e g u l a t i o n s , but administered by the p r o v i n c e s , i . e . a scheme s i m i l a r t o t h a t found i n the F i s h e r i e s A c t : Canada. Commissioners on U n i f o r m i t y of L e g i s l a t i o n , Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting (1968) p. 36.  122  R e f e r e n t i a l and C o n d i t i o n a l The  scope  of  interdelegation  the  Legislation  prohibition  of  federal-provincial  i n the Nova S c o t i a I n t e r d e l e g a t i o n  case has  a l s o been r e s t r i c t e d by the c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f i n s t a n c e s  of  legislative  of  government  co-operation  the  they r e p r e s e n t a t r u e  words,  legislative  the  ambit  of  co-operation  these  has  valid  been  defined  incorporates  by  the v a l i d  body; c o n d i t i o n a l policy  stated  another  Russell,  levels  legislation  delegation  c o r r e s p o n d i n g narrowing o f the i n v a l i d As  two  as r e f e r e n t i a l o r c o n d i t i o n a l  in reality, other  between  o f powers. In techniques  broadened  government  statute  with  a  of  legislation  another  legislative  l e g i s l a t i o n makes the c a r r y i n g  in a  of  technique.  referential  enactments  when,  conditional  upon  agency.(56) H i s usage  out o f t h e the  i s not  act of uniform,  however. As a r e s u l t , the d i s t i n c t i o n between the two i s not always  clear  c u t . For example,  prohibitions  which  operation  "conditional";(57)  the  as  also  Abel  contain  exemptions  Driedger,  l o t t e r y scheme exemption p r o v i s i o n  r e f e r e n c e " . (58)  As  s.207  of  categorizes  the  as  Criminal  criminal  from  however,  their defines  "legislation Code  has  by  been  56 R u s s e l l , supra f n . 39 a t 471. 57 Abel supra f n . 11 a t 825. He does not d i s t i n g u i s h between p r o h i b i t i o n s which are c o n d i t i o n a l on f e d e r a l a c t i o n and those c o n t i n g e n t on p r o v i n c i a l p r o c e s s e s . 58 D r i e d g e r supra f n . 34 a t 704-5.  123  typified  as  legislation, The Day  permissible  cases i n t h i s area concern the  In  Council  1903,  struck  the  federal  notes  prior  that  Judicial  Lord's  on  that,  the  the  encroachment  assumed  to  Day  this  Sunday  Act  of  criminal  law  decision,  observance  the  or  province,  was  the  a matter of  province.(60)  enacted  activities  as  shortly  on  Sundays, but  exemptions.(61)  For  offence  the  example,  to  run  or  p r o v i d e d by  any  p r o v i n c i a l Act  force". limit  The  the  province  conduct  s.8  or  Manitoba  application  of  the  i t would  be  e x c u r s i o n s t o r e s o r t s w i t h i n the  now  enacted  federal lawful  Hogg  provincial  local  a  it  within  or  private  a  which  number  of  created  punishable "except  as  hereafter  in  legislation  to  or  prohibitions to  an  widely  rights  excursions law  as  legislation  made  Sunday  Privy  been  p r i n c i p a l sections  of  that  civil  prohibited  province  so  the  power.(59)  within  federal  thereafter  of  Lord's  Ontario  a merely  The  context.  federal  i t had  was  a matter of p r o p e r t y and  in  conditional  Committee  competence as  nature  or  i t w i l l be more f u l l y e x p l o r e d i n t h a t  key  Act.  referential  run  or  in  that  conduct  province.(62)  59 A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l o f O n t a r i o v . H a m i l t o n S t r e e t R a i l w a y [1903] A.C. 524 (P.C.). 60 Hogg s u p r a f n . 17 a t  305.  61 L o r d ' s Day A c t R.S.C. 1906, 62 R.S.M. 1913,  C.119, S . l .  C.  153.  124  The L o r d ' s  validity D a y  of  this  A l l i a n c e  o f  legislation  C a n a d a  the  v .  was  challenged  in  G e n e r a l  f o r  A t t o r n e y  Manitoba,(63)  with  plaintiffs  maintaining  c o n s t i t u t e d an  i n t e r d e l e g a t i o n of powers. The  that  it  Privy Council  deemed i t r e l e v a n t t o ask "whether o r not i t would have been within  the  competence  effectively  t o enact  Sunday e x c u r s i o n s in  order  within  to  the  no  i t had  the  of  of  this  subject  was  federal  a  statute  exemption,  and  legislation  unlikely  in  light  H a m i l t o n managed  to  provincial  other of  than the  S t r e e t find  that  legislation,  criminal Privy  law,  Nonetheless,  the  statute  although  the  rationale  thus  be  seemed  decision  R a i l w a y . Manitoba  force"  classified  which  Council's  of  at a l l "  "in  l e g i s l a t i o n by r e f e r e n c e . T h i s meant i t had t o be as  Manitoba  Dominion l e g i s l a t i o n  i f this the  Legislature  t h e r e been on  previous  determine  meaning  of  was  the  in Privy  valid  i s f a r from  c o n v i n c i n g or comprehensible:(64) L e g i s l a t i v e p e r m i s s i o n t o do on Sunday t h i n g s or a c t s which persons of s t r i c t e r Sabbatarian views might r e g a r d as Sabbath b r e a k i n g i s no p a r t o f the c r i m i n a l law where the a c t s and things permitted had not p r e v i o u s l y been p r o h i b i t e d . Such p e r m i s s i o n might a p t l y enough be d e s c r i b e d as a matter a f f e c t i n g " c i v i l r i g h t s i n the P r o v i n c e " or as one of "a merely l o c a l nature i n the P r o v i n c e " . Speaking  for  the  unanimous  Court,  continued:(65) 63  [1925] A.C.  384  64 I b i d a t 392, 65 I b i d a t  394.  (P.C.).  per Lord  Blanesburgh.  Lord  Blanesburgh  Cou  125 [W]hat the Parliament o f Canada may do i n t h i s matter i t may a l s o f o r b e a r t o do, and p e r m i s s i v e P r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n e f f e c t i v e f o r i t s purpose, because the P a r l i a m e n t of Canada has not p r e v i o u s l y i n t e r v e n e d at a l l , can be no l e s s e f f e c t i v e a f t e r such i n t e r v e n t i o n i f by i t s v e r y terms the p r e v i o u s l i b e r t y o f the P r o v i n c e s i n t h i s matter remains u n a f f e c t e d . In each case, the P r o v i n c i a l L e g i s l a t u r e i s e x e r c i s i n g a power which, i n the one case by s i l e n c e and i n the o t h e r case i n words, the Parliament of Canada has l e f t i n t a c t . What the P r i v y C o u n c i l because federal  Sunday Act  preserved  seems t o be s a y i n g  activities  was  passed  provincial  in  were  not  1906,  powers  in  here i s t h a t ,  criminal  until  the  and  because  that  statute  this  sphere,  the  federal  l e g i s l a t i o n d i d not expand p r o v i n c i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n as a interdelegation  would,  and  that  it  therefore  true  constituted  valid referential legislation. Driedger  indicates  weaknesses. (66)  First  l e g i s l a t i o n was "except  as  hereafter  provided  provincial statute in  its  statute.  provincial  That  in  any  used  in  i s , the  make  provincial  inherent  the  federal  statutory  exceptions  to  to  determine  enacted a f t e r the whole That  context, fact,  determining legislation.  in  the  66 D r i e d g e r supra f n . 34 a t  if  706.  the  law  f e d e r a l Act,  and is  offences.  competence  must  Driedger's  it  or  criminal  which  "pith  Even  Act  formula  the  in  relevant  form  has  i n f o r c e " c o n s t i t u t e d an express i n v i t a t i o n t o  order  federal  decision  or  Further,  by  the  now  to  read  the  delegation.  legislatures  be  that  include estimation,  Act  a  i t should  substance" an  of  that is  of  the  which  the  126  province  could  might not,  enact  apart  from  i n t h i s context, be  the  federal  r e l a t e d t o any  statute, o f the  it  stated  heads of p r o v i n c i a l powers. Looked a t from t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e , the  Manitoba  statute,  standing  alone,  Examined r a t i o n a l l y , what i t d i d was  hardly  made  d e f i n e was  d e f i n e what  i s not a crime.(67) A c c o r d i n g l y , the p r o v i n c e was a delegated  sense.  exercising  power.  Even a c c e p t i n g the judgement i n Lord's Day face value,  i t has  questionable  A l l i a n c e at  applicability  in  assessing  the v a l i d i t y of s.207 o f the Code. In t h a t s e c t i o n , t h e r e i s no  question  prohibiting  of  Parliament  lotteries  and  coming  fresh  games of  to  chance,  the and  field  of  preserving  " i n t a c t " a v a l i d p r o v i n c i a l power. As has been demonstrated, the p r o h i b i t i o n of gaming has been p a r t of Canadian c r i m i n a l law  since  maintains  the  if  one  case,  era.  Thus,  although  prohibition, a provincial  lotteries applies  his  his  as  being  property  criticisms  of  p o s i t i o n i s untenable.  and  the  legislature civil  Lord's  E x i s t i n g by  p r o v i n c i a l r e g u l a t i o n o f l o t t e r y schemes t e l l s s t o r y . The  f e d e r a l p r o v i s i o n enables  s e c t i o n does  67 I b i d . 68 I b i d a t  705.  not  merely  x  could  rights,(68) Day  Alliance  itself,  the  o n l y h a l f the  the p r o v i n c e s t o a c t i n  a sphere from which they would otherwise This  Driedger  t h a t s.207 i s not a d e l e g a t i o n o f power as, i n the  absence of the regulate  colonial  borrow'  have been  excluded.  independently  valid  127  provincial  enactments.  The  latter  would  be  invalid  but f o r  the terms o f s . 2 0 7 i t s e l f . A more r e c e n t  examination o f t h e format o f t h e L o r d ' s  D a y A c t by t h e Supreme Court o f Canada b a s i c a l l y d u p l i c a t e d the  Privy  Council  position.  A t t o r n e y  G e n e r a l  upheld  validity  the  municipality  from  In  f o r B r i t i s h  of  a  Vancouver  the o p e r a t i o n  D a y A c t . I t was  L o r d ' s  adjudged  a  a  yA l l i a n c e  Columbia,(69) by-law  of portions  t o be  D  v  .  i t unanimously  exempting  the  o f the L o r d ' s  "misconception" o f  o p e r a t i o n o f t h e A c t t o say t h a t i t s e f f e c t was  the  to create a  d e l e g a t i o n o f f e d e r a l power t o the p r o v i n c e s . In Mr. J u s t i c e Rand's view, Parliament and may  may  limit  not be  open t o s e r i o u s  the o p e r a t i o n  do so upon any event o r  Both scholars, also  i t could  Hogg  and  are c r i t i c a l  damning  comments t h a t  for  Weiler,  legislation  eminent  constitutional  d e c i s i o n i n a way  the  C o d e . For  law  that i s  example,  i f the making o f Sunday observance  Hogg  law  matter o f c r i m i n a l law o u t s i d e p r o v i n c i a l competence, decided  that  condition.(70)  of t h i s  s . 2 0 7 of  o f i t s own  debate  is a  as  was  i n H a m i l t o n S t r e e t R a i l w a y , then the r e p e a l i n g o f  Sunday observance outside p r o v i n c i a l  law  i s equally  competence.  a matter o f c r i m i n a l  The Vancouver  by-law  had  law no  s i g n i f i c a n c e except as a removal o f a c r i m i n a l p r o h i b i t i o n , 69  [1959] S.C.R. 497.  70 I b i d a t 509-10.  128  which  is  outside  imposition  is  inconsistent  Interdelegation opting-out  legislatures  case.(71) clause  functionally,  accordance  as  o f a c r i m i n a l p r o h i b i t i o n . He  decision  the  p r o v i n c i a l competence  to the  with  with  the  Lord's Day  Parliament  Nova  amend  d i f f e r e n t and  its  changing  the the  Scotia  characterizes  Act  delegating  to  as  concludes t h a t  S i m i l a r l y , Weiler  i n the  power  surely  as  amounting,  to  provincial  criminal  law  in  sentiments  in  the  r e s p e c t i v e provinces.(72) In  true  referential  legislation,  where  Parliament  adopts a p a r t i c u l a r p i e c e of e x i s t i n g p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n f o r i t s own  use,  interdelegation legislative enactments scheme  i t i s easy enough t o d i s t i n g u i s h i t from  an  of  "a  power.  short-cut".(73) are  involved,  exemption,  the  as  It  is,  But  in  Lysyk's  where  i s the  future  case  incorporation  words,  with is,  provincial the  in  d e l e g a t i o n by another name. J u d i c i a l i n g e n u i t y has, c o n f i n e d the p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t range. As which  may  confound,  a  result,  test a  the  careful  reality, however,  i n t e r d e l e g a t i o n t o a narrow  Lysyk concludes, ingenuity  lottery  of,  "the  but  draftsman".(74)  doctrine  seems  is  unlikely  Nonetheless,  one to  Weiler  71 Hogg supra f n . 17 a t 306-07. 72 W e i l e r , "The Supreme Court and the Law o f Canadian F e d e r a l i s m " , (1973) 23 U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto Law J o u r n a l a t 315. 73 Lysyk, "The I n t e r d e l e g a t i o n D o c t r i n e : A C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Paper T i g e r ? " , (1969) 47 Canadian Bar Review 271 a t 274. 74 I b i d a t  277.  307  129  cautions or  that,  because t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between r e f e r e n t i a l  conditional  essentially  one  legislation of  name  Supreme Court has l e f t when  and  i f i t may  and  rather  itself wish  interdelegation  than  of  substance,  free t o resurrect to  do  so  some  is the  the l a t t e r  time  i n the  future.(75)  By l i m i t i n g t h e i n t e r d e l e g a t i o n d o c t r i n e t o such narrow confines,  the  flexibility. executives  courts  In  have  effect,  of the federal  primarily  responsible  they  facilitated have  constitutional  conceded  and p r o v i n c i a l  that  the  governments a r e  f o r the d i s t r i b u t i o n of  legislative  a u t h o r i t y where t h e r e  i s mutual agreement.(76) One v i e w p o i n t  is  of e f f e c t i n g  that  change  this  i s essential  federalism agreements without  means  through allows  recourse  to  national  informal  survival.  federal-provincial an  on-going  t o the courts  constitutional Co-operative  negotiations  redistribution  of  o r t o t h e formal  and powers  amending  process.(77) The  o t h e r s i d e o f t h e c o i n a r e the c o s t s t o be p a i d f o r  constitutional  flexibility.  De j u r e  75 W e i l e r supra f n . 72 a t 106-7. 76 I b i d a t 317. 77 Hogg supra f n . 17 a t 106-7.  o r de f a c t o  delegation  130  runs  the  risk  government  of  or  a  p r e s s u r e by one powers  which  to  constitutional  their  toothless  be  better  which  they  flexibility,  reduces  the  legislative  clearly  of  It  the  exercised were  in  may  central encourage  the  and  guise  the  of  of  level  Further,  governments and  to  gives  t o a c t when a c t i o n  offers  fundamental  of  co-operative  electorates  for failing  Smiley  by  given.(78)  accountability  bodies  needed.(79)  assessment  over-powerful  federation.  p o l i t i c i a n s p l a u s i b l e reasons is  an  l e v e l of government on the o t h e r t o t r a n s f e r  would  government  federalism,  creating either  the  following  defect  of  such  flexibility:(80) [T]he federal system is cut adrift from its constitutional base and becomes a regime shaped d e c i s i v e l y by the b a r g a i n i n g powers of the f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l governments r a t h e r than by l e g a l norms. One  segment of the p o p u l a t i o n which i s e x p e r i e n c i n g the  tangible  costs  decriminalize peoples, to  of lottery  the  questionable schemes  is  process  Canada's  s p e c i f i c a l l y n a t i v e I n d i a n s . T h i s new  used  to  aboriginal arrangement,  which they were not a p a r t y , p u r p o r t s t o s u b j e c t them t o  p r o v i n c i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n i n the matter o f l o t t e r y schemes. I f I n d i a n s bands wish t o conduct  gambling o p e r a t i o n s on  Indian  78 Canadian Bar A s s o c i a t i o n , Toward a New Canada, quoted i n Magnet, C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Law of Canada (Toronto: C a r s w e l l , 1983) p. 93. 79 Smiley, Canada i n Question: F e d e r a l i s m i n the E i g h t i e s 3rd ed. (Toronto: McGraw-Hill, 1980) p. 53. 80 I b i d a t  54.  131  lands,  they  must,  the  federal  and  provincial  governments  argue, seek a p r o v i n c i a l l i c e n c e . The complex dimensions o f this  claim  and  next c h a p t e r .  the c o u n t e r c l a i m s w i l l  be  examined  i n the  132  CHAPTER FIVE INDIAN GAMING In have  the  been  last  engaged  recognition some  of  government.  decades,  in  a  of  title  political  Regarding  1969,(1)  in  apparatus  o f the I n d i a n Act,(2)  many  raising  to the  be  "the  which  Coincidentally,  this  accommodated the  spread  and  most  the  of  same  for self  the White  to  the  vestiges  i s considered catalyst"  in  peoples.(3)  span  l e g a l i z e d gambling  as  Paper  dismantle  Indian  time  and  population,  important of  legal  to  e l i m i n a t e any  consciousness is  for  right  Indian  proposed  peoples  lands  t o I n d i a n peoples,  single  political  or  I n u i t peoples,  released  by  certain  native  and  of s p e c i a l s t a t u s accorded  to  indigenous campaign  autonomy  the  from the M e t i s  Canada's  rejuvenated  aboriginal  measure  distinct  two  that  has  i n Canada i n  the form o f l o t t e r y schemes. These two few  years  following  as the  d i s t i n c t developments have merged i n the several example  Indian s e t by  bands Indian  across tribes  the  last  country,  i n the  1 D.I.A.N.D..Statement o f the Government of Canada on P o l i c y . 1969 (Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1969).  United Indian  2 R.S.C.1970, c.I-6. 3 B o l d t and Long (eds.), The Quest f o r J u s t i c e : A b o r i g i n a l Peoples and A b o r i g i n a l R i g h t s ( T o r o n t o : U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto Press,1985) p. 7 and Mason "Canadian and U n i t e d S t a t e s Approaches t o I n d i a n Sovereignty", (1983) 21 Osgoode H a l l Law J o u r n a l 422 a t 433.  133  States,  have  activities, requisite charges  sought  to  particularly provincial  being  with  proceedings  entered  claiming the r i g h t  symbolic  organized  on r e s e r v e s ,  resulting  instances, a l b e i t  one o f j u r i s d i c t i o n .  bingos,  licences. This  laid,  being  conduct  has  in  gambling  without  led to criminal  convictions  in  some  p e n a l t i e s , and i n s t a y s o f  i n others.(4)  The b a s i c i s s u e i s  The bands and t h e p r o v i n c e s  t o r e g u l a t e gambling  the f e d e r a l government maintains  the  a r e each  on r e s e r v e s ,  while  t h a t i t has no j u r i s d i c t i o n  i n t h i s sphere. T h i s chapter w i l l examine t h e m e r i t s o f these jurisdictional applicability  claims,  focussing  of p r o v i n c i a l  l i c e n s i n g scheme t o Indians assertions  of  native  in  competing  particular  enactments  such  as a  to  the  legal  the  lottery  and Indian l a n d s , as w e l l as on  sovereignty.  Given  the  s i t u a t i o n i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , some a t t e n t i o n w i l l directed  on  situation  there  parallel a l s o be  f o r comparative  purposes.  4 I n d i a n and Northern A f f a i r s Canada (INAC), Gaming on Reserves (Ottawa:INAC,1987) Annex J , d e t a i l s some o f t h e charges and c o n f r o n t a t i o n s which have a r i s e n i n t h e l a s t few years.  134  An I n t r o d u c t i o n t o Indians and the I n d i a n A c t In  order  follows,  to provide  a context  i t i s necessary  f o r the a n a l y s i s which  t o begin  with  some b r i e f  r e g a r d i n g the l e g a l p o s i t i o n o f I n d i a n peoples Although  t h e r e was  an i n i t i a l  European legal,  by the t r e a t i e s made w i t h settlement  social  peoples.  At  and  of  Canada  cultural  Confederation,  o f s o v e r e i g n t y , as  the B r i t i s h  ultimately  power  Crown, the  meant  subservience the  i n Canada.  semblance o f w i l l i n g n e s s  t o t r e a t t h e Indians as having some form evidenced  remarks  to  political,  f o r her  native  legislate  for  "Indians and Lands r e s e r v e d f o r I n d i a n s " was a s s i g n e d t o t h e federal  arm  of  government  by  section  91(24)  C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t , 1 8 6 7 . ( 5 ) As Ponting and G i b b i n s  of  the  indicate,  t h i s a l l o c a t i o n o f I n d i a n i s s u e s t o the f e d e r a l l e v e l can be t r a c e d back t o an e a r l i e r concern o f the I m p e r i a l  government  in  population  London  would  likely  controlled the  that  come  the  federal  the c h i e f  local  from and  government  t h r e a t t o the n a t i v e land-hungry provincial  was  the  settlers governments.  most  distant  who  also  In  1867,  from  local  government, where i t e x i s t e d , and the o n l y a l t e r n a t i v e where  5 30-31 V i c t . , c.3 as amended.  135  i t d i d not by  ( i . e . the western  t e r r i t o r i e s ) . ( 6 ) T h i s i s echoed  Sanders:(7) "[T]he d e c i s i o n t o g i v e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o the more d i s t a n t l e v e l of government removed I n d i a n p o l i c y from d i r e c t competition with l o c a l i n t e r e s t s . "  The l e g i s l a t i v e p o l i c y o f the f e d e r a l government under t h i s head o f power d i d not, however, depart d r a m a t i c a l l y from t h a t o f p r e - C o n f e d e r a t i o n enactments which were designed t o " c i v i l i z e " the Indians and a s s i m i l a t e them i n t o the dominant c u l t u r e . The  I n d i a n A c t , which was  f i r s t passed  i n 1876  merely a c o n s o l i d a t i o n of p r e - e x i s t i n g p r o v i n c i a l t e r r i t o r i a l l e g i s l a t i o n that dealt with The this  general  day,  complex  is  scheme of  essentially  system  for  the  Indian Act,  and  and  Indians.(8)  paternalistic.  defining  was  operational to  It  prescribes  registering  Indians,  a d m i n i s t e r i n g t h e i r lands and r e g u l a t i n g t h e i r l i v e s . ( 9 ) ultimate minster fact  responsibility charged  that,  with  since  the  rests  Indian very  with  the  affairs, early  and  days,  federal this  a  The  government despite  powers  of  the  local  government have devolved on the i n d i v i d u a l r e s e r v e s . The  Act  6 P o n t i n g and G i b b i n s , Out o f I r r e l e v a n c e (Toronto: Butterworths, 1980) p. 7. 7 Sanders, "The F r i e n d l y Care and D i r e c t i n g Hand of the Government: A Study of Government T r u s t e e s h i p of Indians i n Canada" (Unpublished paper, 1977) p. 6. 8 B a r t l e t t , "The Indian A c t of Canada", (1978) 27 B u f f a l o Law Review 581; Ponting and G i b b i n s supra fn.6 a t 8. 9 Morse, " A b o r i g i n a l Peoples and the Law" i n Morse (ed.) A b o r i g i n a l Peoples and the Law e t c . (Ottawa:Carleton U n i v e r s i t y Press,1985) pp.1-15 a t 1.  136  tinkered band  with  tribal  councils  powers.(10)  As  which one  arrangements possess  t o produce  "very  commentator  modest"  notes,  a system o f by-lawmaking  this  creates  a  fundamental i n c o n s i s t e n c y between t h e encouragement o f l o c a l self-government  on t h e r e s e r v e s and t h e i n s i s t e n c e on t o t a l  c o n t r o l i n t h e hands o f t h e M i n i s t e r . ( 1 1 ) The of  by-lawmaking powers, which a r e now found  t h e A c t , a r e g e n e r a l l y c o n f i n e d t o matters  r u r a l m u n i c i p a l i t y would be concerned. subordinate  t o r e g u l a t i o n s enacted  A c t but also  in s . 8 1  w i t h which a  They are, o f course,  pursuant  t o the  Indian  t o t h e more p e r n i c i o u s power o f d i s a l l o w a n c e  v e s t e d i n t h e M i n i s t e r o f I n d i a n A f f a i r s by v i r t u e o f s . 8 2 of  the A c t : " s . 8 2 ( 2 ) A by-law made under s e c t i o n 81 comes i n t o f o r c e f o r t y days a f t e r a copy t h e r e o f i s forwarded t o the M i n i s t e r pursuant t o s u b s e c t i o n (1), u n l e s s i t i s d i s a l l o w e d by t h e M i n i s t e r w i t h i n t h a t p e r i o d . . . "  As  will  important have  be  shown,  this  power  of  i n the context o f l o t t e r y  attempted  operations.  to  enact  A l l except  by-laws  one have  disallowance  i s very  schemes, as many bands to  been  authorize disallowed  gambling by t h e  Minister. The I n d i a n A c t i s undeniably e x t e n s i v e i n i t s ambit. As Hogg p o i n t s out, Parliament has taken t h e view t h a t i t may 10 Nakaratsu, "A C o n s t i t u t i o n a l R i g h t o f I n d i a n S e l f Government", (1985), 43 U n i v e r s i t y o f Toronto F a c u l t y o f Law Review 72 a t 75. 11 B a r t l e t t , s u p r a fn.8 a t 584.  137  legislate outside  f o r Indians  i t s jurisdictional  govern the He  competence e.g.  the  would l i e  rules  o f deceased  which  Indians.  t h a t w h i l e t h e r e might be some q u e s t i o n whether  enactments are  in pith  Indians o r t o lands r e s e r v e d probably  which otherwise  s u c c e s s i o n t o the p r o p e r t y  suggests  these  on matters  uphold  any  and  substance  f o r Indians,  p r o v i s i o n which  related to i n t e l l i g i b l e  in relation the  could  to  c o u r t s would be  rationally  Indian p o l i c i e s . ( 1 2 )  E x t e n s i v e though the I n d i a n A c t may  be,  i t i s certainly  not e x h a u s t i v e . Other f e d e r a l s t a t u t e s , such as the C r i m i n a l Code and the  the F i s h e r i e s A c t apply on r e s e r v e s independent o f  Indian Act,  and  i n fact  may  prevail  over  i t . In  other  words, l e g i s l a t i o n  i s a p p l i e d t o the n a t i v e p o p u l a t i o n t h a t  is  to  not  tailored  values.(13)  Beyond  meet that,  a p p l i c a t i o n have moved t o however,  the  their  provincial fill  application  Indians tended  particular  of  laws  needs of  general  i n o t h e r gaps. Before provincial  t o depend on whether the  legislation  incident  and  1951, to  concerned  took p l a c e on or o f f a r e s e r v e . The c o u r t s allowed o n l y v e r y l i m i t e d p r o v i n c i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n on In 1951, introduced.  what i s now It  makes  s e c t i o n 88  all  12 Hogg, C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Law Carswell,1985) p. 554.  of the I n d i a n A c t  provincial  laws  o f Canada 2d ed.  13 Morse, supra fn.9 a t 8. 14 B a r t l e t t , supra fn.8 a t  reserves.(14)  603.  of  was  general  (Toronto:  138  application federal  with  the  for  example,  limits  it.(15)  opinion  that  provincial  except  8 8  that  that  on  by  treaties,  where  1982,(17)  p r o v i n c i a l and  they  This  amendment  expand  hand,  powers  they  n e g a t i v e terms.  "massive  i t s own  exist,  of  lay  is  the  in fact of  the  intrusion  of  government  to  claim.(16)  terms, i s l i m i t e d  and  i t may of  e x i s t s the  federal  a  the  entrenchment  t h e r e now  that  and  It  a r o l e f o r p r o v i n c i a l governments  f e d e r a l enactments. In t u r n , the  other  otherwise  I n d i a n r e s e r v e s which, by  With  the  might  unquestionably legitimated on  extent  s . 8 8 does not  represents  councils  the  to  treaties  a p p l i e s t o Indians, but  j u r i s d i c t i o n " into  band  to  i n both p o s i t i v e and  Bartlett, s .  subject  i t s regulations.  states  body of p r o v i n c i a l law  which  Indians,  A c t and  been c h a r a c t e r i z e d  Hogg,  to  l e g i s l a t i o n , and  conflict has  applicable  by  the  only  presence  of  preempt band by-laws. the  C o n s t i t u t i o n  potential  f o r l i m i t s on  l e g i s l a t i v e presence on  the  A c t ,  the  reserves  by v i r t u e of s e c t i o n 3 5 ( 1 ) : "The existing aboriginal and treaty r i g h t s of a b o r i g i n a l peoples of Canada are hereby r e c o g n i z e d affirmed." Hence,  to  conflicts  the with  w i l l be of no  extent an  that  existing  any  legislative  aboriginal  or  treaty  the and  enactment right,  it  f o r c e or e f f e c t .  15 Hogg, s u p r a fn.12  at  16 B a r t l e t t , s u p r a fn.8  561. at  607.  17 Enacted by the C a n a d a A c t ,  1982  (U.K.) c. 11,  Schedule  B.  139  A complex l e g a l s i t u a t i o n thus p r e v a i l s "Indians  and  provincial  lands  and  reserved  native  o f t e n unco-operative not have equal vis-a-vis power  for  governments  partnership,  i n relation to  Indians".  constitute  Federal, an  uneasy,  i n which t h e p a r t n e r s  do  access t o power. The r e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f power  lottery  schemes  differential.  is a  Indian  good  illustration  bands were  of  not a p a r t y  this  t o the  n e g o t i a t i o n s which took p l a c e i n t h e e a r l y 1980s t o r e s o l v e the  federal-provincial  they  consulted  Constitutional Code  by  struggle  the  Affairs  over  Senate  lotteries,  Committee  when i t was  on  examining  ( L o t t e r i e s ) Amendment B i l l . ( 1 8 )  nor  were  Legal  and  the C r i m i n a l  None o f t h e exemptions  l a i d out i n s.207 o f the Code a l l o w f o r Indian band c o u n c i l s t o operate p e r m i t t e d l o t t e r y schemes. Indian i n t e r e s t s were, a t b e s t , overlooked been taken  and, a t worst, i g n o r e d . I t seems t o have  f o r granted  t h a t they  should  be t r e a t e d e x a c t l y  the same as each p r o v i n c i a l p o p u l a t i o n concerned, s u b j e c t t o provincial  regulatory  schemes,  regardless  o f whether  they  were a p p r o p r i a t e t o band needs and a s p i r a t i o n s . Given 15-20  years,  identical When  this  through 1970s,  18 B i l l  i n the U n i t e d  statutory  r e g u l a t o r y treatment  legalized  spread early  t h e experience  gambling,  silence was  the American s t a t e s  C-81, 1 s t Sess.  33rd P a r i ,  and  extremely  particularly  some American Indian  States  i n the past  assumption  short-sighted.  lotteries,  i n the l a t e bands began  1984-85.  of  began  to  1960s  and  running  so-  140  called  "monster" bingo  enterprises,  games, c a r d rooms and  generating  other  gambling  s u b s t a n t i a l revenues, without  state  s a n c t i o n . S t a t e and county governments then i n s t i g a t e d action  against  the  bands  States  Supreme  Court  rendered  cases which endorsed the gambling  concerned. a  right  operations  on  In  1987,  the  d e c i s i o n i n one  o f Indian  their  tribes  lands  legal United  of to  these  conduct  in  certain  situations.(19) I f Canadian Indian bands continue practices, Court  of  there  i s an  Canada  will  t h e i r c u r r e n t gaming  extreme l i k e l i h o o d be  called  upon  to  t h a t the decide  Supreme  the  legal  m e r i t s of these a c t i o n s . A c c o r d i n g l y , b e f o r e a n a l y z i n g these merits,  the  American  experience  will  be  examined  as  it  o f f e r s some e n l i g h t e n i n g comparisons.  I n d i a n  G a m i n g  i  nt h e  What Rose has gambling state  i n the  of  S t a t e s  termed the  United  lotteries  transformation  U n i t e d  and New  " t h i r d wave"(20) o f  States  began  i n the  has  grown  to  Jersey  into  a  legalized  mid-1960s  with  encompass  destination  the casino  19 C a b a z o n B a n d o f M i s s i o n I n d i a n s v . C a l i f o r n i a , 1 0 7 1083 (1987); 55 Law Week 4225. 20 Rose, Gambling and the Law 1986) p . l .  (Hollywood: Gambling Times,  S.Ct.  141  r e s o r t , v i d e o gambling, o f f - t r a c k b e t t i n g , l e g a l c a r d rooms, c h a r i t y bingos  and Indian bingos:(21)  Legalized gambling has become the biggest growth industry of the 1980s on the nation's Indian r e s e r v a t i o n s . At l e a s t 100 of the 283 I n d i a n t r i b e s i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s are c o n s i d e r i n g s e t t i n g up bingo games on t r i b a l l a n d . The Rincon I n d i a n T r i b e i s the t h i r d t r i b e i n San Diego County t o s e t up h i g h - s t a k e s gambling. The t r i b e , w i t h o n l y 500 members,is b u i l d i n g a bingo h a l l t h a t w i l l s e a t 1,000. The Seminole T r i b e i n F l o r i d a r e p o r t e d t h a t i t s bingo o p e r a t i o n grossed more than $20 m i l l i o n i n 1982, r e s u l t i n g i n a net p r o f i t o f $2.7 m i l l i o n f o r the t r i b e ' s 1,500 members. S i m i l a r o p e r a t i o n s have been s e t up i n Maine, Minnesota and Washington." This  has  provoked  vehement  state  opposition.  As  one  observer notes, t o the s t a t e s , c o u n t i e s and c i t i e s i n v o l v e d , it  seems  to  signify  an  appropriation  of  their  right  govern, "a menacing i n t r u s i o n on l o c a l c o n t r o l and  on  to  state  p l e n a r y powers".(22) At  the  federal level,  more p o s i t i v e .  however,  response  the primary  the U.S.,  has  responsibility  made g r a n t s  and  purpose of c o n s t r u c t i n g bingo I n t e r i o r has  has  Interior,  guaranteed loans  facilities.(23)  approved t r i b a l  been  f o r Indian A f f a i r s  The  in  f o r the  Secretary  ordinances e s t a b l i s h i n g  and r e g u l a t i n g gaming a c t i v i t i e s . ( 2 4 ) The 21 I b i d a t  has  For example, the Department of the  which has  o f the  the  f e d e r a l government  210.  22 DeDomenicis, " B e t t i n g on Indian R i g h t s " C a l i f o r n i a Lawyer 29. 23 U.S.  Senate Report.  (1986)No.99-493,  24 U.S. p. 10.  House of R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s Report.  (1983) 3  p.5. (1986)No.99-488,  142  is on early  r e c o r d as b e i n g 1980s  a c t i v i t i e s on  to  opposed t o a p r o p o s a l  give  the  states  mooted i n  control  of  the  gambling  reservations:(25)  "Such a p r o p o s a l i s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the P r e s i d e n t ' s Indian P o l i c y Statement o f January 24, 1983 [26]...A number of t r i b e s have begun t o engage i n bingo and s i m i l a r gambling o p e r a t i o n s on t h e i r r e s e r v a t i o n s f o r the v e r y purpose enunciated i n the P r e s i d e n t ' s Message. Given the o f t e n l i m i t e d r e s o u r c e s which t r i b e s have f o r revenue producing a c t i v i t i e s , i t i s b e l i e v e d t h a t t h i s kind of revenue producing possibility should be p r o t e c t e d and enhanced." Consequently,  Indian  gaming  is  at  the  centre  of  s t r u g g l e between the s t a t e s t o a s s e r t t h e i r j u r i s d i c t i o n  a and  the Indian t r i b e s t o r e j e c t i t . T h i s s t r u g g l e i s a r e c u r r i n g one  and r e q u i r e s some e l u c i d a t i o n .  Canada parallel  and  the  policies  United vis-a-vis  States their  have  adopted  Indian  populations,  v a c i l l a t i n g between a s s i m i l a t i o n and  s e p a r a t i o n , but  exerting  American  paternalistic  control.(27)  however, been more prepared  than t h e i r Canadian  largely  courts  always have,  counterparts  25 These statements were r e l i e d on i n C a l i f o r n i a v . C a b a z o n B a n d o f M i s s i o n I n d i a n s a t the Court o f Appeals l e v e l : 783 F.2d 900 a t 904-5 (1986). 26 " I t i s important t o the concept o f self-government t h a t t r i b e s reduce t h e i r dependence on F e d e r a l funds by p r o v i d i n g a g r e a t e r percentage of the c o s t o f t h e i r self-government." Quoted i n C a l i f o r n i a v . C a b a z o n B a n d o f M i s s i o n I n d i a n s , s u p r a f n . 19 a t 4229 27 Mason, s u p r a fn.3 a t  423.  143  to  play  at  least  l i p service  to  the  notion  of  Indian  United  States  sovereignty. The  constitutional  are somewhat d i f f e r e n t  arrangements from those  i n the  i n Canada. I n d i a n  affairs  are o n l y p e r i p h e r a l l y r e f e r r e d t o i n the C o n s t i t u t i o n : ( 2 8 ) "Congress i s a u t h o r i z e d t o r e g u l a t e Commerce...with the Indian T r i b e s . " This  is  the  only  express  grant  of  federal  power  over  I n d i a n s . There i s no d i r e c t American e q u i v a l e n t t o s. 91(24) of U.S.  the  C o n s t i t u t i o n Act,  Supreme  Court  in  United  gap  has  been  constitutional recognized  that  justification Indians  and  1867.  there  for Indian  was  Since States  the v.  no  While  explicit  i t decided  the  Kagama,(29)  irrelevant.  f e d e r a l a s s e r t i o n s of land,  d e c i s i o n of  the  this Court  constitutional  jurisdiction  that  that  over  power  must  r e s t w i t h e i t h e r the s t a t e s or w i t h the f e d e r a l government. The  Court  vested  opted  i n the  f o r an  inherent  federal level  power over  Indian  of government. I n d i a n  over I n d i a n a f f a i r s beyond a narrow range was  affairs autonomy  not g i v e n  any  consideration.(30)  28 U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n . a r t i c l e 1, paragraph 8, 18 (Indian Commerce C l a u s e ) . 29 118 U.S.  375  clause  (1886).  30 For a t r e n c h a n t c r i t i c i s m of t h i s d e c i s i o n as w e l l as of U.S. Indian p o l i c y as a whole, see Kronowitz e t a l . , "Towards Consent and Cooperation: R e c o n s i d e r i n g the p o l i t i c a l S t a t u s of Indian Nations", (1987) 22 Harvard C i v i l R i g h t s - C i v i l L i b e r t i e s Law Review 507.  144  The  exclusion  characterized wall"  from  by  of state  interests  one source  as b e i n g  on I n d i a n r e s e r v e s , "an  insurmountable  1831-1882,(31) has, however, been eroded by t h e  c o u r t s over t h e l a s t c e n t u r y . As Kronowitz e t a l . note, many s t a t e s have extended Indian  lands  supported  situated  i n this  their  legal  within  controls  state  over I n d i a n s and  borders,  by t h e Supreme Court.(32)  and have The Court  been now  s u b s c r i b e s t o a view t h a t I n d i a n r e s e r v a t i o n s a r e a p a r t o f the s u r r o u n d i n g s t a t e . ( 3 3 ) S t a t e laws w i l l  t h e r e f o r e apply  u n l e s s they have been preempted by f e d e r a l  legislation.(34)  T h i s expansion o f s t a t e i n t e r e s t s has been achieved, n o t a t the  cost  of federal  power,  but a t t h e expense  of Indian  interests:(35) "[Recent Supreme Court] d e c i s i o n s . . . r e v e r s e t h e l o n g standing presumption of the exclusion of state j u r i s d i c t i o n over Indians and e s t a b l i s h a presumption o f s t a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n l e s s Congress has s p e c i f i c a l l y pre-empted s t a t e law. Taken t o g e t h e r , they p o t e n t i a l l y l e a v e no area o f t r i b a l j u r i s d i c t i o n untouched by t h e states. The Court's decisions necessitate Indian c h a l l e n g e s t o s t a t e a c t i o n through expensive and timeconsuming l i t i g a t i o n , and p r o v i d e s t r o n g i n c e n t i v e s f o r s t a t e s t o a s s e r t t h e i r j u r i s d i c t i o n over I n d i a n s and Indian t e r r i t o r y within t h e i r borders." 31 Haslam, " I n d i a n S o v e r e i g n t y : Confusion P r e v a i l s " , 63 Washington Law Review 169 a t 170.  (1988)  32 Kronowitz e t a l . , s u p r a f n . 30 a t 561.  33 O r g a n i z e d V i l l a g e o f K a k e v . E g a n , 369 U.S. 60 (1 R i c e v . R e n n e r , 463 U.S. 713 (1983). I n t h e l a t t e r d e c i s i o n , Madam J u s t i c e O'Connor s t a t e d (at 723) t h a t " ' a b s o l u t e ' f e d e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n was not always e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n " . 34 M c C l a n a h a n v . A r i z o n a , 411 U.S. 164 (1973). 35 Kronowitz e t a l . , s u p r a fn.30 a t 569-70.  145  P u t t i n g a s i d e t h i s d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e expansion c o n t r o l s on I n d i a n r e s e r v e s noted  that,  States  unlike  i t s Canadian  constitution  states.  vests  Consequently,  jurisdiction  over  temporarily,  i t should  counterpart,  the c r i m i n a l  of state a l s o be  the  law power  United i n the  t h e f e d e r a l government p r e s e r v e d i t s  Indian  affairs  by  creating  a  separate  system o f c r i m i n a l laws f o r t h e r e s e r v e s . The  G e n e r a l C r i m e s Act(36)  s e t s out t h e powers o f t h e  f e d e r a l government t o punish o f f e n c e s by non-Indians a g a i n s t the person  or property  against  t h e person  C r i m e s  Act(37)  jurisdiction Indians  over  or property also  committed  have  by  gives  fourteen  on r e s e r v e s .  governments  o f Indians,  These  o f non-Indians. the  specific serious  exclusive  Indians  and o f f e n c e s by  against  central offences  offences  jurisdiction Indians  Indians  The M a j o r government  committed  by  aside,  tribal  over  crimes  occurring  on  tribal  l a n d s . The s t a t e s , on t h e other hand, have e x c l u s i v e power over  a l l o f f - r e s e r v a t i o n crimes  i n v o l v i n g non-Indians and  Indians. This  arrangement  jurisdiction  over  begs  crimes  the  question  committed  by  of  who  non-Indians  has on  r e s e r v a t i o n s . In O l i p h a n t v . S u q u a m i s h I n d i a n T r i b e , ( 3 8 ) t h 36 18 U.S.C. # 1152 (1982) 37 18 U.S.C. # 1153 (1982) 38 435 U.S. 191 (1978).  146  Supreme Court h e l d t h a t the s t a t e s had t h a t power, r e j e c t i n g the I n d i a n c l a i m t h a t the t r i b a l c o u r t s had The  final  component  r e g a r d i n g c r i m i n a l law, 280,(39)  which  has  legislative  factor  1953,  statute  this  federal  of  this  to  i n Indian delegates  to  power  regarding  lawlessness  granted  populations and  civil  borders.(41) statute  added  six  most  states  regulate  had on  Law  significant Enacted  some  the  activities  on  some  concern  some r e s e r v a t i o n s and with  the  in  of  expressed  states  complete  criminal  jurisdiction Any  or  another  however,  scheme  largest  in  Indian  (Alaska, C a l i f o r n i a , Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon  Wisconsin)  limited  by  the  the  the  to  Congress  response  be  gaming l i t i g a t i o n .  reservations.(40) apparent  jurisdictional  i s the f e d e r a l enactment P u b l i c  proved  government's  jurisdiction.  over  jurisdiction  and  more  reservations within  their  other s t a t e c o u l d assume such state  nine  tribal  constitutional states  to  consent  the  to  jurisdiction  amendment, list.(42)  state  which  Since  has 1968,  jurisdiction  is  required.(43) 39 18 U.S.C. #1162, 28 U.S.C. #1360 (1982  and Supp. I I I ) .  40 McDonnell, " F e d e r a l and S t a t e R e g u l a t i o n o f Gambling and L i q u o r S a l e s W i t h i n Indian Country", (1985) 8 Hamline Law Review 599 a t 606. 41 DeDomenicis, supra fn.22 a t  31.  42 A r i z o n a , F l o r i d a , Idaho, Iowa, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Utah and Washington. 43 I n d i a n C i v i l R i g h t s Act,25 U.S.C. ##1321-1322,1326 (1982).  147  The  Supreme Court  B r y a nv  . I t a s c a  application civil  first  to  considered P u b l i c L a w 2 8 0 i n  County,(44)  Indians  of  the  j u r i s d i c t i o n which was  Court  held  that  the  jurisdiction  over  Indians  between  and  rather  also  states  private  which  Indians  ambiguous  on  grant  only  suits  and  The  granted  between  civil  Indians  non-Indians.  the of  i n c l u d e d i n the Law.  were  civil  focussed  The  and  Court  reasoned t h a t t r i b a l governments would be rendered t o o t h l e s s if  they  county  were civil  distinction P u b l i c  subject  to  the  regulations. between  the  full  The  Court  criminal  L a w 2 8 0 which was  spectrum  and  of  state  created civil  a  and  careful  sections  t o become c r u c i a l  i n the  of Indian  gaming d e c i s i o n s . Turning government provides  specifically  enacted  that  to  prohibitory  i t is illegal  to  gambling,  the  legislation operate  a  in  federal  1951  gambling  which device  w i t h i n the boundaries o f an I n d i a n r e s e r v a t i o n . ( 4 5 ) The "gambling and  term  d e v i c e " encompasses s l o t machines, r o u l e t t e wheels  similar  d e v i c e s . I t would not  games.(46)  The  O r g a n i z e d  44 426 U.S.  373  (1975).  45 15 U.S.C. #1175  necessarily affect  C r i m e  bingo  C o n t r o l  A c t of  (1982)  46 Indeed, i n U n i t e d S t a t e s v . F a r r i s , 624 F.2d 890 a p r o s e c u t i o n brought a g a i n s t the P u y a l l u p I n d i a n s who were o p e r a t i n g a c a s i n o , the l i m i t e d range of t h i s enactment was noted as was "the conspicuous c a u t i o n " o f the c a s i n o s t o a v o i d the use o f gambling d e v i c e s which would be caught by i t (at 896). 47 18 U.S.C. #155  197  (1982).  (1980  148  which makes i l l e g a l gambling a f e d e r a l o f f e n c e , a l s o a p p l i e s on  reservations,  where gambling earlier,  but  only  i f they  are  situated  in  i s a v i o l a t i o n o f s t a t e law. As was  gambling  has  been  legalized  in  the  states  mentioned  majority  of  in California  v.  s t a t e s i n the Union.  I n d i a n Gaming B e f o r e t h e Courts P r i o r t o the Supreme Court's d e c i s i o n  Cabazon Band o f M i s s i o n Indians,(48) the I n d i a n gaming cases fell  i n t o two  280)  and  those  (OCCA). The considered As  has  former  been the  law  had  powers.  to  Seminole  48 Supra  noted  Organized the  above,  federal  larger  make  (PL  Crime  Control A c t  group  and  will  be  on  Indian  careful Seminole  Florida's bingo  fn.19. 310  280  contains a grant  of  to  level  of criminal  reservations limit  Tribe  the of  scope  and of  Florida  the F i f t h C i r c u i t c o n s i d e r e d whether PL  tribe's  49 658 F.2d  PL  t o the s t a t e  been In  Butterworth,(49) acted  comprise  jurisdiction  Supreme Court civil  i n v o k i n g the  280  first.  power from civil  c a t e g o r i e s : those based on P u b l i c Law  (1981).  bingo  statute  operations.  The  applicable Florida  to  and the the v. 280 the  statute  149  permitted  small  scale,  charitable  operated a permanent, commercial Relying Itasca,  on  the  the  Court  c l a s s i f i e d as  Supreme  Court's  I t was  inclusion  penal  conclude t h a t a n a l y s i s was state  on  legislature  the in  could in  focussing  in  the  issue  of  enacting  bingo the  nature  and  statute  and  bingo  simply p o i n t Florida  to  statute  the  statute.  not  was  the and  sophisticated  intent This  of  the the  analysis  bingo s t a t u t e was  hence  v.  however, i t would  on the p u b l i c p o l i c y o f  produced a d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t the regulatory"  not  Bryan  i t would a p p l y ; i f  p r o h i b i t o r y . A much more  required,  Seminoles  in  the  or c i v i l ,  sanctions  i t was  if  or c r i m i n a l ,  observed t h a t one of  decision  that,  i t were d e s i g n a t e d " r e g u l a t o r y " not.  The  facility.  determined  "prohibitory"  bingos.  applicable  "civilto  the  Seminole o p e r a t i o n s : ( 5 0 ) "Bingo appears t o f a l l i n a c a t e g o r y of gambling t h a t the s t a t e has chosen t o r e g u l a t e by imposing c e r t a i n l i m i t a t i o n s t o a v o i d abuses. Where the s t a t e r e g u l a t e s the o p e r a t i o n of bingo h a l l s t o prevent the game o f bingo from becoming a money-making b u s i n e s s , the Seminole I n d i a n t r i b e i s not s u b j e c t t o t h a t r e g u l a t i o n and cannot be prosecuted f o r v i o l a t i n g the l i m i t a t i o n s imposed.... L e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t determines whether the s t a t u t e i s r e g u l a t o r y or p r o h i b i t o r y , and although the state of Florida prohibits lotteries in general, e x c e p t i o n s are made f o r c e r t a i n forms o f gambling i n c l u d i n g bingo." In o t h e r words, as degree, then the state  long  as  the  Indians are  constraint.  50 I b i d a t 314-15.  It  is  not  s t a t e p e r m i t s bingo t o some  f r e e t o operate bingos without clear  whether  the  Court  was  going so f a r as t o say,  t h a t as l o n g as the s t a t e  permitted  some forms o f gambling t h a t the I n d i a n t r i b e s c o u l d any  and  a l l forms  important, point  though,  the  gambling  i s t h a t the  state's  i n t e r e s t s , was A  of  operations.  Court  legislative  took as  policy.  operate  What  is  more  i t s reference  That,  not  Indian  t o be the d e c i s i v e f a c t o r .  similar  case,  similar  conclusion.  playing  of  bingo,  Oneida The  but  l i c e n s i n g , c o n t r o l and  v.  State  of  regulated  Wisconsin,(51) Wisconsin the  conduct  t a x a t i o n . Again,  reached  permitted of  the Court  the  games was  a  by  faced  w i t h the t a s k o f c a t e g o r i z i n g the nature o f these bingo laws i n o r d e r t o determine whether they would apply t o  Indian-run  o p e r a t i o n s . Employing the a n a l y s i s used i n Seminole i t concluded The simply  Indians,  t h a t they were c i v i l r a t h e r than c r i m i n a l .  Wisconsin  to leave  Chief  Judge  was,  i t at that, f i n d i n g  however,  reluctant  i t "too mechanical"  approach.(52) He chose t o b u t t r e s s h i s f i n d i n g by  presenting  i t a g a i n s t a s o - c a l l e d "back-drop" of t r i b a l s o v e r e i g n t y . recognized inhering  the in  restricted historically  51 518  continued  the form  Indian than  limited  F.Supp. 712  52 I b i d a t 719,  existence tribes,  they role  did  of  though 150  sovereign in  years  a ago,  per Crabb, C h i e f Judge.  He  rights  much  more  and  f o r s t a t e i n t e r v e n t i o n on  (1981).  an  the  tribal  151  lands.(53)  These  deliberations  produced  the  following  conclusion:(54) "Keeping i n mind t h e backdrop o f I n d i a n sovereignty a g a i n s t which P u b l i c Law 280 must be measured, as w e l l as t h a t 'eminently sound and v i t a l canon ... t h a t s t a t u t e s passed f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f dependent t r i b e s ... are t o be l i b e r a l l y construed, doubtful expressions being resolved i n favour of the Indians', ... I conclude t h a t when Congress c o n f e r r e d j u r i s d i c t i o n on the S t a t e o f Wisconsin t o e n f o r c e i t s c r i m i n a l laws on the Oneida R e s e r v a t i o n , Congress intended t o l i m i t t h e e x e r c i s e o f t h a t j u r i s d i c t i o n to. enforcement o f laws generally prohibiting activities that the state determined a r e t o o dangerous, unhealthy, o r otherwise detrimental t o the well-being of the state's c i t i z e n s . . . . [ T h i s ] c o n c l u s i o n ... appears t o be i n keeping w i t h present federal policy encouraging tribal selfgovernment . 11  With i t s concern t o r e s p e c t t r i b a l state j u r i s d i c t i o n , classification cases  Oneida,  sovereignty  by  i n moving away from t h e narrow  i s s u e , i s o v e r a l l t h e most f a v o u r a b l e  f o r Indian  limiting  of the  interests.  In B a r o n a G r o u p o f C a p i t a n G r a n d B a n d v . D u f f y , ( 5 5 ) t h e Southern  District  consistent with permitted Indian  Court  of C a l i f o r n i a  t h e F l o r i d a and Wisconsin  some bingo games a l b e i t  tribes  were  not bound  by  S e m i n o l e  T r i b e  v .  54 I b i d a t 720. 55 694 F.2d 1185 (1982).  California regulation.  those  enactments.  civil  i n t e r e s t s as t h e c o u r t  B u t t e r w o r t h ,  focussed mainly on t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n 53 I b i d a t 715.  cases.  a decision  under s t r i c t  Although not as d i s m i s s i v e o f Indian i n  rendered  the court  issue, noting that i t  in  B a  152  was  a  close  question  and  "not  susceptible  of  easy  application".(56) This  difficulty  was  acknowledged  by  the  U.S.  Supreme  Court i n C a l i f o r n i a v  . C a b a z o n B a n do f M i s s i o n Indians.(57)  In  Court  a  6:3  decision,  scheme adopted state 280.  the  i n the  laws a p p l i e d  to  endorsed  lower c o u r t s Indian  T h i s r a t i f i c a t i o n was,  the  classification  f o r determining  reservations  by  whether  v i r t u e of  PL  however, r a t h e r lukewarm:(58)  "It i s not a b r i g h t - l i n e r u l e , however; and . . . and argument of some weight may be made t h a t the bingo s t a t u t e i s p r o h i b i t o r y r a t h e r than r e g u l a t o r y . But i n the p r e s e n t case, the c o u r t [of Appeals] reexamined the s t a t e law and r e a f f i r m e d i t s h o l d i n g i n Barona, and we are r e l u c t a n t t o d i s a g r e e w i t h t h a t c o u r t ' s view o f the nature and i n t e n t of the s t a t e law a t i s s u e here." The be  Court was examined  regulatory or If  c a r e f u l t o p o i n t out t h a t each s t a t e law in detail  Court was 280  56 I b i d a t  characterized  as  i t would merely have  state  policy  S e m i n o l e T r i b e i s the  determining  l i k e the Wisconsin c o u r t i n O n e i d a , the Supreme  l a r g e r context. 1189.  57 S u p r a fn.19. 58 I b i d a t 4227. 59 I b i d .  be  levied against  i . e . that  compelled t o p l a c e  in a  can  rested there,  t o the c r i t i c i s m  v . B u t t e r w o r t h , f a c t o r . But,  they  prohibitory.(59)  the d e c i s i o n had  been s u b j e c t  PL  before  must  the In  classification this  instance,  scheme f o r however, i t  153  was n o t a back-drop o f t r i b a l  s o v e r e i g n t y , but t h e g e n e r a l  i s s u e o f s t a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n on r e s e r v e s . From t h e o u t s e t , t h e Court u n d e r l i n e d t h a t i t had not, in  previous  d e c i s i o n s , e s t a b l i s h e d "an i n f l e x i b l e  rule" precluding state j u r i s d i c t i o n  over  tribes  p e r se  and t r i b a l  members i n t h e absence o f c o n g r e s s i o n a l consent.(60) Indeed, t h e Court r e c o g n i z e d a r o l e f o r t h e s t a t e r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e federal  position  " i f the  state  interests  at  stake  are  s u f f i c i e n t t o j u s t i f y the a s s e r t i o n of state authority".(61) A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e r e was t o be a b a l a n c i n g o f f e d e r a l , and  Indian  interests  i n determining  state  the a p p l i c a b i l i t y  of  s t a t e laws t o I n d i a n l a n d s . The s t a t e i n t e r e s t  asserted i n  C a b a z o n was  crime.  legitimacy  of  the this  prevention concern  of  was  organized  recognized,  The  but, i n t h e  absence o f any evidence o f o r g a n i z e d c r i m i n a l involvement i n the Cabazon gambling o p e r a t i o n s , t h e Supreme Court was n o t prepared interests  to of  override  "compelling"  encouraging  tribal  federal  and  tribal  self-sufficiency  and  economic development.(62) What t h i s i m p l i e s i s t h a t i f t h e r e is some degree o f evidence might  be  defined)  on  o f o r g a n i z e d crime  Indian  reservations,  (however t h a t then  state  60 I b i d a t 4228. 61 I b i d a t 4229, quoting from N e w M e x i c o v . M e s c a l e r o A p a T r i b e , 462 U.S. a t 334. 62 C a l i f o r n i a v . C a b a z o n , i b i d a t 4230.  154  legislation,  whether or not  i t i s merely " r e g u l a t o r y "  will  apply. To  summarize  constructed  a  the  Cabazon  two-pronged  decision: test  the  for  determining  j u r i s d i c t i o n on I n d i a n lands under PL 280. state or  legislation  be  characterized  c i v i l - r e g u l a t o r y ? Secondly,  civil  enactment, are  state  t o make i t a p p l i c a b l e Regarding criticizes are h e l d are  the  i t as  even  as  Supreme  First,  i f i t i s designated  interests sufficiently  important  first  aspect  of  this  test,  he  argues w i l l  Turner  interests state  produce non-uniform  t o p o l i c i e s which v a r y  o f f e r e d by Kronowitz e t a l . , which i s d i r e c t e d a t the the  Cabazon  test.  It  deserves  to  and  dramatically  from s t a t e t o s t a t e . ( 6 3 ) T h i s c r i t i c i s m p a l e s b e s i d e the  of  a  nonetheless?  incongruous r e s u l t s due  aspect  the  criminal-prohibitory  a s s i m i l a t i o n i s t , because t r i b a l  This,  state  should  i n abeyance w h i l e the p o l i c y i n t e r e s t s of the  assessed.  Court  be  one  second  quoted  in  full:(64) "Even more dangerous t o the f u t u r e of t r i b a l selfgovernment, however, was the Court's d e f e r e n c e t o s t a t e i n t e r e s t s . ... The Court r e f u s e d t o r e c o g n i z e t h a t the c r i t i c a l i n t e r e s t a t stake i s the s o v e r e i g n r i g h t of the t r i b e s t o govern r e s e r v a t i o n a f f a i r s f r e e from state intrusion. In failing to do so, Cabazon i l l u s t r a t e s the modern Court's c o n t i n u i n g willingness t o use unique f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n s t o render general, 63 Turner, " E v o l u t i o n , A s s i m i l a t i o n and S t a t e C o n t r o l o f Gambling i n I n d i a n Country: e t c . " , (1988) 24 Idaho Law Review 317 a t 335. 64 Kronowitz e t a l . , s u p r a f n . 30 a t  583.  155 open-ended o p i n i o n s i n I n d i a n law. The r a t i o n a l e used by the Court, although g r a n t i n g a s h o r t - t e r m v i c t o r y f o r the I n d i a n p l a i n t i f f s i n Cabazon, may e a s i l y be applied t o the detriment of o t h e r t r i b e s seeking p r o t e c t i o n from s t a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l i n t r u s i o n i n the future." It  is  fair  to  say  that  the  Supreme  perhaps not as benign as i t may In  Cabazon,  Control  Act  the  c o n s i d e r e d . The  Court  Indian  decision i s  f i r s t appear t o be.  applicability  (OCCA) t o  Court's  of  the  gambling  recognized  Organized  operations  t h a t t h e r e was  U.S.  v.  Farris,(65)  Washington  were  f o r example,  running  casinos  the  Puyallup  without  any  was  a  between the d e c i s i o n s of the lower c o u r t s on t h i s  been  specific  adopted subject  them. Having  by  the  areas,  state,  and  acknowledged  it  gambling  i s s u e . In Indians  in  approval  or  this,  the  covered was  not  court  also  conflict  l i c e n c e from the S t a t e Gambling Commission. Although had  Crime  PL  only  280  eight  included  then  in  considered  whether the c a s i n o o p e r a t i o n s v i o l a t e d OCCA's p r o h i b i t i o n of illegal  gambling.  As  was  indicated  earlier,  there  must  t h e r e f o r e be a v i o l a t i o n o f s t a t e law f o r OCCA t o a p p l y . s t a t e of Washington allowed had  strict  regulations land.  some forms o f gambling, but i t  r e g u l a t i o n s a g a i n s t p r o f e s s i o n a l gambling. These did  not,  Nonetheless,  however,  i t was  apply  held  that  to  65 624  against  F.2d  890  professional  (1980).  Indians  OCCA  because the c a s i n o o p e r a t i o n s contravened policy  The  gambling.  was  on  Indian  applicable  the s t a t e ' s p u b l i c The  judge  who  156  dissented  i n this  case  summed  up t h e l o g i c a l  difficulties  w i t h t h i s view:(66) " I t exceeds t h e l i m i t s o f reasonable c o n s t r u c t i o n t o h o l d t h a t conduct which c o u l d not be punished under t h e s t a t e law i s nonetheless "a v i o l a t i o n o f t h e law o f [the] S t a t e " w i t h i n t h e meaning o f 18 U.S.C. # 155. Conduct t o which t h e law i s i n a p p l i c a b l e does not v i o l a t e t h e law i n t h e o r d i n a r y meaning o f those words. The i d e a t h a t a person can t r a n s g r e s s s t a t e law by conduct not punishable under that state law i s inconsistent with minimum notions of notice and fairness." Farris  was  Barona.(67)  applied  t o t h e OCCA  The C a l i f o r n i a c o u r t  argument  explained  that  tribal  activity  within  t h e meaning o f OCCA depends on whether  the  "public  raised i n whether a  i s "a v i o l a t i o n o f t h e law o f a  policy"  application of state  of  the  state,  the  t h a t t h e Barona's bingo o p e r a t i o n s public p o l i c y of C a l i f o r n i a .  This  i t violates  same  law under PL 280. Hence,  state"  test for  i t concluded  were n o t c o n t r a r y  t o the  merging o f t h e t e s t s f o r  OCCA and PL 280 would appear t o l i m i t  the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of  the  i n which gambling i s  f e d e r a l enactment t o those s t a t e s  completely p r o h i b i t e d . Compare t h i s  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n with the d e c i s i o n  v. Dakota,(68) where t h e Michigan c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t the  state  Indian  legislation  land,  was  not a p p l i c a b l e  i t c o u l d be i n c o r p o r a t e d  67 S u p r a fn.55 a t 1190. 68 796 F.2d 186 (1986).  although  t o Indians  by r e f e r e n c e  66 I b i d a t 898 p e r Browning, C i r c u i t J .  i n U.S.  on  i n t o OCCA  157  t o determine whether t h e gambling was i l l e g a l . need,  therefore  issue;  to divine  i f Indians  engage  state  "public  i n gambling  There was no  policy"  on t h e  operations  above  s t a t u t o r i l y d e f i n e d l e v e l s which a r e i l l e g a l o f f t h e r e s e r v e under s t a t e law, t h i s i s a v i o l a t i o n o f OCCA. T h i s was j u s t i f i e d  on t h e b a s i s  that  OCCA i s a f e d e r a l  and  r a i s e s no danger o f encroachment on I n d i a n  by  the states.(69)  encroachment,  but  There the  approach  i s certainly  incorporation  no  of  statute  sovereignty  direct  state  state  statutory  standards i n f e d e r a l l e g i s l a t i o n has e x a c t l y t h e same impact on Indian autonomy as i f they were a p p l i e d The  Supreme Court i n C a b a z o n chose not t o r e s o l v e  inconsistency, likely  directly.  limit  but i t d i d make t h e use  of  an o b s e r v a t i o n  OCCA  against  which  Indian  this will  gambling  operations:(70) "There i s nothing i n OCCA i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e S t a t e s are t o have any p a r t i n e n f o r c i n g f e d e r a l crimes o r a r e a u t h o r i z e d t o make a r r e s t s on Indian r e s e r v a t i o n s t h a t in t h e absence o f OCCA they c o u l d not e f f e c t . We a r e not informed o f any f e d e r a l e f f o r t s t o employ OCCA t o p r o s e c u t e t h e p l a y i n g o f bingo on Indian r e s e r v a t i o n s , although t h e r e a r e more than 100 such enterprises c u r r e n t l y i n o p e r a t i o n , many o f which have been i n e x i s t e n c e f o r s e v e r a l years, f o r t h e most p a r t w i t h t h e encouragement o f t h e F e d e r a l Government." In t h e wake o f t h e Supreme Court's d e c i s i o n i n C a b a z o n , the  f e d e r a l government r e a c t i v a t e d  to l e g i s l a t e a regulatory  earlier,  failed  efforts  scheme f o r gambling o p e r a t i o n s i n  69 I b i d a t 188. 70 C a l i f o r n i a v . C a b a z o n , s u p r a f n . 19 a t 4228.  158  I n d i a n country. and  Control  Designed  In 1983  Act  to  a bill  had  meet  been  concerns  t r i b a l gambling a c t i v i t i e s , federal  standards  ordinances  by  regarding  on  the  tribal  in  Secretary  o f the  the  Indian  tribe  for  and  1985.(72) In  the  adoption  individuals gaming  and  and  tribal  by r e q u i r i n g  operations.  the  operation  This b i l l  was  and  failed  reintroduced  supervise  Indian  firms  Further,  management  t o pass t h a t  in  identical  gambling  N e i t h e r o f these were passed i n t o Late i n 1988, Administration,  Commission and  of  the  also  i n t o by of  the  session form  in  introduced  f o r the c r e a t i o n of I n d i a n - c o n t r o l l e d Gaming  to  This  of  management  a d d i t i o n a Senate v e r s i o n was  which p r o v i d e d Commissions  supervision  and management c o n t r a c t s e n t e r e d  gambling o p e r a t i o n s . Congress  Congress.(71)  I n t e r i o r would have t o approve a l l t r i b a l  gambling ordinances  law.(74)  in  Gambling  i t proposed t o e s t a b l i s h minimum  requiring  checks  involved  of  introduced  t o r e g u l a t e gambling o p e r a t i o n s  background  an  known as the I n d i a n  law.  however, i n the d y i n g days o f the Reagan  the Act  enterprises.(73)  Indian  Gaming  establishes  a tri-partite  an  Regulatory National  Act  became  Indian  Gaming  r e g u l a t o r y scheme. T r a d i t i o n a l  forms of I n d i a n gambling are w i t h i n the e x c l u s i v e c o n t r o l of 71 H.R.  4566, 98th Cong., 1st Sess.  (1983).  72 H.R.  1920,  (1985).  73 S. 902,  99th Cong., 1st Sess.  99th Cong., 1st Sess.  74 P u b l i c Law  (1985).  100-497, 100th Congress (Oct. 1988).  159  the  tribes;  bingo  games  will  be  supervised  Commission; every o t h e r form o f gambling lotteries, to  enter  pari-mutuel into  reservation has  provoked  tribes, their  who  a  "compact"  The  requires the Indian  with  extensive perceive  criticism  the state  several  tribes  i n which  the  latter provision  and o p p o s i t i o n  i t as an u n j u s t i f i e d  Consequently,  the  (e.g. c a s i n o games,  i s situated. Inevitably, this  sovereignty.  have been  betting)  by  from t h e  encroachment on court  challenges  launched. Indian  gaming  issue  i n the United  States i s ,  t h e r e f o r e , s t i l l t h e s u b j e c t o f c o n t r o v e r s y and c o n f l i c t . I t i s viewed by t h e Indian in but  i t s own r i g h t also  larger chapter  as a v i t a l  i n a symbolic  i s s u e o f Indian will  examine  i s s u e i n Canada.  t r i b e s as b e i n g tool  sense,  important  o f economic  not o n l y  regeneration,  s e r v i n g as a focus  sovereignty.  t h e dimensions  The remainder of the Indian  f o r the of t h i s gaming  160  The Canadian Context; The S i g n i f i c a n c e o f fiamhUwg on Reserves(75) I n d i a n bands view the r i g h t t o c o n t r o l gambling on the reserves  as  important  f o r several  reasons.  I t i s , as  was  indicated  i n the opening chapter, a t r a d i t i o n a l pastime  cultural  significance  Maranda  native  Indians.  S a l i s h I n d i a n s , found t h a t gambling had deep, h i s t o r i c  roots  culture.(76)  It  served  study  as  a  of  example, Coast  their  ethnological/historical  For  the  in  i n her  for  of  form  of  social  e x p r e s s i o n and as a forum i n t h e i r p o l y t h e i s t i c r e l i g i o n f o r supernatural  power.  The  gambling  games o f  dice,  disc  and  bone, hand o r s l a h a l were seen t o be an e x p r e s s i o n o f man's power a f f i l i a t i o n s . the  outcome  of  Power was  each  gambling  themselves be an endorsement gave t a n g i b l e  and  of  The  power. (77)  an element which c o u l d event,  and  games  bone  or  slahal  o f the game  influence  i s the  Coast S a l i s h gambling game o f a b o r i g i n a l o r i g i n s t i l l played pull  today. Modern tickets,  have  forms taken  would  o f the "power f a v o u r " , as they  observable v e r i f i c a t i o n hand,  the  affect  o f gambling, the  place  of  only being  such as bingo the  others.  and The  75 While much o f the succeeding commentary w i l l be a p p l i c a b l e t o a l l p a r t s o f Canada, a t t e n t i o n w i l l o f t e n be focussed on the p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n t h a t p r e v a i l s i n B r i t i s h Columbia s i n c e time and space p r e c l u d e s a more comprehensive a n a l y s i s . 76 Maranda, Coast S a l i s h Gambling Games,Canadian Ethnology S e r v i c e Paper # 93 (Ottawa: N a t i o n a l Museums o f Canada, 1984). 77 I b i d a t ( v i ) .  161  continued who  significance  observes  that  o f t h e bone game i s noted  the Gitksan  observe and m a i n t a i n  on t h e Skeena  by S t a r r  River  still  a t r a d i t i o n a l c h i e f t a i n p o s i t i o n whose  I n d i a n name i s "Gambling  Chief":(78)  "He d e r i v e s h i s power and p o s i t i o n o f C h i e f as a r e s u l t o f h i s s k i l l and cunning i n t h e bone game. The C h i e f p a r t i c i p a t e s equally with other Gitksan c h i e f s o f high rank i n t h e i r p o t l a c h ... T r a d i t i o n a l l y , t h e G i t k s a n s gambled f o r t h e r i g h t t o win s p o i l s o f war which then became t h e common p r o p e r t y o f t h e house ( o r c l a n ) o f the c h i e f who won i t . The communal ownership o f gambling winnings i s i n keeping w i t h t h e fundamental and unique Indian p h i l o s o p h y o f communal ownership o f property. 11  Gambling  has,  therefore,  always  been  a  socially  a c c e p t a b l e a c t i v i t y i n Indian communities and remains so. As i n o t h e r communities, bingo and o t h e r forms o f gambling p l a y an  important  councils  social  f u n c t i o n . I n c r e a s i n g l y , however,  a r e coming  t o appreciate  potential  that  Columbia,  f o r example,  running  gambling  i t s own bingo  t h e revenue  has f o r t h e r e s e r v e s . the Gitksan  operations,  band  generating In B r i t i s h  i s one o f t h e bands  t h e proceeds  from  which  are kept i n t h e community f o r p r o j e c t s such as community and treatment In  c e n t r e s and funding c o u r t c h a l l e n g e s . recent  years,  given  t o economic  stems  from  there  has been  development  increasing attention  on r e s e r v e s .  t h e f e d e r a l government  which  In part,  wants  this  t o reduce  I n d i a n dependence on f e d e r a l funding. But i t a l s o r e f l e c t s a 78 "Submission t o t h e Task Force on Gaming on Reserves", i n INAC, Gaming on Reserves, supra fn.4 a t 35.  162  determination  on t h e p a r t o f t h e bands t o r e a s s e r t c o n t r o l  over t h e i r own a f f a i r s . Economic dependency stems d i r e c t l y o f  the  I n d i a n  paternalism.  A c t  Under  and  t h e terms  from t h e s t r u c t u r e  i t s underlying of t h i s  legislation,  l a n d i s p r o t e c t e d by p r o v i s i o n s which exclude from  taxes,  liens,  mortgages  philosophy  o r other  Indian  charges  of  Indian people  on  their  l a n d s . These p r o v i s i o n s have, however, made i t d i f f i c u l t f o r Indians  t o enter  Gibbins  observe  for  Indians  t h e modern  t h a t they  to  raise  debtor  society.  have made i t next  outside  investment  Ponting  and  t o impossible capital,  for  p o t e n t i a l l y v a l u a b l e I n d i a n l a n d cannot be mortgaged so t h a t t h e r e i s r e l i a n c e on t h e f e d e r a l government f o r t h e c a p i t a l needed  to  promote  economic  development.  The o s t e n s i b l y  p r o t e c t i v e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e A c t "now serve as a s h a c k l e on Indian s e l f - r e l i a n c e " . ( 7 9 ) S e c t i o n 8 7 o f t h e I n d i a n A c t exempts from t a x a t i o n t h e i n t e r e s t s o f an I n d i a n o r a band i n r e s e r v e o r surrendered lands  and t h e p e r s o n a l  property  o f t h e same s i t u a t e d  on a  r e s e r v e . As B a r t l e t t p o i n t s out, t h e d e n i a l o f t h e a b i l i t y of  other  autonomy  governments of that  regardless  of  to tax a  community.(80)  t h e powers  community  may  secure t h e  He f u r t h e r comments  o f government  possessed  79 S u p r a fn.6 a t 10. 80 " T a x a t i o n " i n Morse (ed.) s u p r a f n . 9 a t 579.  that, by  a  163  community,  an  exemption  from  taxation  will  economic development o f t h a t community.(81) t r u e , however, finance  i f t h e community  such development.  encourage  That o n l y  holds  has r e s o u r c e s o f i t s own t o  Political  power  i s , to a  large  e x t e n t , dependent on economic power. The taxation own  legislation also  which  largely  t a x base. S e c t i o n  protects  prevents 83  Indians  them  from  external  from d e v e l o p i n g  o f the I n d i a n  their  Act provides  that  where a band "has reached an advanced s t a t e o f development, the c o u n c i l o f the band may,  s u b j e c t t o the a p p r o v a l o f the  m i n i s t e r make by-laws f o r " i n t e r a l i a  "the r a i s i n g o f money  by t h e assessment and t a x a t i o n o f i n t e r e s t s reserve  of  persons  lawfully  in  i n land  possession  i n the  thereof".  government t a s k f o r c e r e c e n t l y concluded t h a t band  A  taxation  powers are underdeveloped due t o the l i m i t a t i o n s s e t out i n s. 83 and t h a t t h i s  i s i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h the b a s i c  need o f  bands f o r t a x revenue t o pay f o r the i n f r a s t r u c t u r e r e q u i r e d t o a t t r a c t and support business.(82) Even i f more l i b e r a l t a x a t i o n powers were g i v e n t o the bands t h e r e i s a r e a l q u e s t i o n o f whether, g i v e n t h e s o c i o demographic p r o f i l e  o f many I n d i a n  bands,  they  would  have  much impact. A study o f I n d i a n lands i n B r i t i s h Columbia and 81 I b i d . 82 INAC. Task Force on Indian Economic Development. Summary o f the r e p o r t t o the Deputy M i n i s t e r . INAC (Ottawa: Supply and S e r v i c e s Canada, 1986) p. 21.  164  the  Yukon  i n the  have a p o p u l a t i o n creates  late of  problems.  1970s found  300  or  They  that  l e s s and  lack  minimum  in  s m a l l t o permit the  delivery  opportunities conducive government  and  services.(83)  high  small  size  population,  t h e i r populations  the band t o r e a l i z e of  majority  group, t o s u s t a i n v i a b l e  economic development e n t e r p r i s e s , and too  vast  that t h i s  the  e s p e c i a l l y i n the l a b o u r f o r c e age  the  unemployment  are  economies o f s c a l e Limited  are  hardly  business factors  t o the nourishment of a h e a l t h y tax base. A r e c e n t review  of  gaming  on  reserves  offered  the  f o l l o w i n g assessment:(84) "Most Indian communities are on the p e r i p h e r y o f the Canadian economic system r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e i r geographic l o c a t i o n . T h i s i s e s p e c i a l l y so i n the remote areas where t h e r e tend t o be few economic o p p o r t u n i t i e s . There i s a l i m i t t o the number of j o b s , even l o w - s k i l l j o b s , i n the primary r e s o u r c e s s e c t o r . Moreover, g i v e n the e x i s t i n g f i s c a l r e s t r a i n t , government funds cannot be expected to meet all economic development requirements. Many bands do not have an adequate t a x base on which t o r a i s e s i g n i f i c a n t funds a d d i t i o n a l t o what i s p r o v i d e d by f e d e r a l budgeting which must c o n c e n t r a t e f i r s t on critical areas of need such as housing. In these circumstances, gaming p r o v i d e s a r a r e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r the bands t o r a i s e revenues f o r community purposes by "voluntary taxation"."85 83 P o n t i n g and G i b b i n s , supra f n . 6 a t 36. The r e c e n t t a s k f o r c e on Indian economic development a l s o concluded t h a t s m a l l markets on Indian r e s e r v e s have s t u n t e d the growth o f the r e t a i l and manufacturing s e c t o r s o f the n a t i v e b u s i n e s s community - INAC. Task Force on Indian Economic Development, supra fn.82 a t 11. 84 INAC, supra f n . 4 a t  13.  85 By a t t r a c t i n g non-natives onto the r e s e r v e s t o p l a y bingo e t c . the bands would not be wholly r e l i a n t on t h e i r own members t o generate revenues. Such e n t e r p r i s e s would a l s o  165  The  Task Force might a l s o have mentioned t h a t  federal  p r o v i n c i a l c o n f l i c t over t h e p r o v i s i o n o f s o c i a l s e r v i c e s on reserves  has  acknowledge  compounded  that  the  the federal  situation.  government  The  provinces  has t h e r i g h t t o  l e g i s l a t e r e g a r d i n g Indians and t h e lands r e s e r v e d f o r them. Some go f u r t h e r t o a s s e r t t h a t t h e f e d e r a l the  total  responsibility  for  Indians  to legislate  government has  and p r o v i d e s e r v i c e s  on r e s e r v e s . The f e d e r a l  government's  i t has t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  right  position  is  that while  on  (and p r o v i d e s e r v i c e s to) Indians, where i t chooses not  to  exercise that right,  t h e normal d i v i s i o n  out i n t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n p r e v a i l s . (86)  to legislate  o f powers s e t  I n t h e area o f s o c i a l  s e r v i c e s , t h e r e f o r e , t h e p r o v i n c e s would, i n t h e absence o f federal  action,  be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e p r o v i s i o n o f these  costly  services.  In  many  instances,  governments have chosen not t o assume t h i s resulting  i n the s o c i a l  the  provincial  responsibility,  impoverishment o f t h e r e s e r v e s . I n  the words o f one observer,  r e s e r v e Indians  f i n a n c i a l squeeze and a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l  " a r e caught i n a  conflict".(87)  Gambling revenues o f f e r t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o l o o s e n vise.  As S t a r r i n d i c a t e s ,  the general  this  o b j e c t i v e o f Indian  bands i n c o n d u c t i n g bingos e t c . on r e s e r v e s i s t o supplement perhaps stem t h e flow o f n a t i v e gambling expenditures o f f the r e s e r v e . 86 P o n t i n g and G i b b i n s , supra fn.6 a t 182. 87 Morse, supra f n . 9 a t 8.  166  the  annual  federal  operating  government.  budget  that  i t receives  The aim i s t o draw  natives  from  the  and non-  n a t i v e s onto t h e r e s e r v e s t o gamble. The p r o f i t s a r e used t o p r o v i d e band affordable  members w i t h community programs  under  the core  funding. (88)  n o t otherwise  It i s a  way  of  improving t h e immediate c o n d i t i o n s o f l i f e on r e s e r v e s w h i l e at  the  same  degree.  time  Indian  intertwined  furthering  peoples  economic  recognize  w i t h economic  autonomy  that  development.  to  self-government i s Without  the l a t t e r ,  self-government i s a meaningless phrase.(89) Gambling money and money equates w i t h power. Even Force  on  gambling  Gaming i s often  represent lands,  on  Reserves  fairly  an a f f i r m a t i o n  that  t h e band  d e c i s i o n s as t o whether carried resolved  out on t h e i r here  suggests,  councils  t h e revenue  control  i s whether  they  still  over t h e i r  a r e t h e ones  The  from  bingos  fundamental are l e g a l l y  own  t o make t h e  o r not any type o f a c t i v i t y lands.  means  i f , as t h e Task  modest,(90) band-run of Indian  some  issue  can be t o be  entitled  to  conduct gambling o p e r a t i o n s on r e s e r v e s w i t h o u t a p r o v i n c i a l licence. There  are several  possibilities  to consider.  p r e c e d i n g chapter, t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y  In t h e  of the t r a n s f e r of  88 Supra f n . 78 a t 2. 89 See t h e comments made by C h i e f G a b r i e l Gopher o f t h e North B a t t l e f o r d D i s t r i c t C h i e f s t o t h e Task Force on I n d i a n Economic Development, supra f n . 82 a t 46. 90 Supra fn.4 a t 13-18.  power  over  lottery  provincial obvious  schemes  governments  implications  reserves.  I f the  for  would once more be gambling  legally would  on  provincial Reserves  an  restore  some  unacceptable  Secondly, that  gaming  Columbia  in  effectiveness held  issue  has  gaming  on  absent  federal  affairs  the  Task  would  however, the  are  of  by  precluding  on  Gaming to  inherent  on  accept  in  offend  off  may  purposes of  will  be  the  validity assumed,  analysis. arguments  to  some p r o v i n c e s , basic  lands.  final  be  made  British  principles  affect  Indian  i n abeyance u n t i l the  aboriginal  constitutional  independent  which and  the  arrangement  enactments  on  This  constitutional  willing  reserves.(91) For  law  other  consent.  Force  be  any  and  f o r o t h e r s such an arrangement would  particular,  both  would,  compromising  there  games  jurisdiction,  traditional  t o the p r e c e d i n g  control  administrative  w i l l be  As  federal-provincial  without p r e j u d i c e  the  federal  require  the  bands  but  succeeding d i s c u s s i o n , the  over  Indian  involvement.  r i g h t s over gaming on  of  jurisdiction  reserves  regarding  notes,  This  to  down as b e i n g i n v a l i d , gambling  argument,  federal regulation, be  struck  Indian  least  arrangements  federal  scrutinized.  firmly within  compelling at  the  t r a n s f e r of power over l o t t e r i e s and  of chance were t o be  any  was  from  their These  of  legal issues  chapter where they  91 Supra f n . 4 a t 19. T h i s p o s i t i o n w i l l be examined i n f r a , f o l l o w i n g the d i s c u s s i o n of the a p p l i c a t i o n of p r o v i n c i a l enactments on r e s e r v e s .  168  will  undergo  rigorous  analysis.  For  present  purposes,  however, t h e i r v a l i d i t y w i l l a l s o be assumed. In t h e remainder o f t h i s chapter, t h e focus w i l l be on two  key q u e s t i o n s : whether p r o v i n c i a l gaming p r o v i s i o n s and  l i c e n s i n g requirements  a r e a p p l i c a b l e on I n d i a n lands under  the terms o f s . 8 8 o f t h e I n d i a n A c t , reserves affairs,  have  an  inherent  right  to  and whether Indians on  regulate  their  own  i n c l u d i n g gambling.  P r o v i n c i a l  J u r i s d i c t i o n  Although jurisdiction Indians",(92)  the over  federal "Indians  provincial  government and  has  Lands  legislation  exclusive  reserved  may apply  for  on r e s e r v e s  i f i t conforms t o s . 8 8 o f t h e I n d i a n A c t : "Subject t o t h e terms o f any t r e a t y and any o t h e r A c t o f t h e Parliament o f Canada, a l l laws o f g e n e r a l a p p l i c a t i o n from time t o time i n f o r c e i n any p r o v i n c e are a p p l i c a b l e t o and i n r e s p e c t o f Indians i n t h e p r o v i n c e , except t o t h e extent t h a t such laws a r e inconsistent with this A c t o r any o r d e r , rule, r e g u l a t i o n o r by-law made thereunder, and except t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t such laws make p r o v i s i o n f o r any matter f o r which p r o v i s i o n i s made by o r under t h e A c t . " The lottery  first and  i s s u e t o be examined gambling  enactments  a p p l i c a t i o n " . One o f t h e key cases  i s whether  are  "laws  provincial of  general  on t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f  92 C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t , 1 8 6 7 , s . 9 1 ( 2 4 ) .  169  provincial legislation  " t o and  i n r e s p e c t o f Indians i n the  province" i s C a r d i n a l v  .A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l o f Alberta,(93)  which  "[n]o  i t was  stated that  legislature would  be  general  dealing  valid  and  with  Indians  effective,  legislation  may  s t a t u t e of  not  or  but  their  there  affect  laws apply  through  provincial  lands  i s no  as  such  reason  them." W i t h i n  one o f the main i s s u e s i n c o n t e n t i o n was provincial  the  why  C a r d i n a l  whether o r not  referential  such  incorporation i n  s . 8 8 o f the I n d i a n A c t , i . e . i t s terms become f e d e r a l law apply  to  Indians  independently  as  as  long  as  such,  or  the  subject  whether matter  they  The  as the  - t h a t I n d i a n r e s e r v e s are  enclaves  from  rejected simply  by  theory" which  the m a j o r i t y .  declares  that,  a p p l y o f t h e i r own  apply  former view, o f t e n r e f e r r e d  provincial  laws  are  I t supported  within  i t s terms,  -  view t h a t s . 8 8 provincial  gaming c o n t r o l  one  the  C o n s t i t u t i o n encompass  a  enumerated  heads  A c t ,1 8 6 7 .  provincial  lottery  There  licensing  [1974] 2 S.C.R.695.  of  the  several  which  Saloon,  Tavern,  o t h e r L i c e n c e s i n o r d e r t o the Municipal  least  s.92(9)  and  or  to  scheme:  Auctioneer  Local  "Shop,  are  provinces  93  impose  s.92  the  for Provincial,  to  of  authorizes  Revenue  laws  legislation,  be a p p l i c a b l e " i n r e s p e c t o f I n d i a n s " must a t the v e r y within  was  force.  Accordingly, p r o v i n c i a l  come  to  federal  excluded  the  and  comes w i t h i n  provincial jurisdiction. "enclave  in  raising  Purposes";  of  a  the  could  170  provinces  have  (s.92(13))  power  over  and a l s o  over  property matters  and  of a  civil local  rights or  private  nature ( s . 9 2 ( 1 6 ) ) . Three Supreme Court o f Canada d e c i s i o n s i n r e c e n t y e a r s have c o n s i d e r e d t h e extent t o which Indians enjoy from  otherwise  valid  M a n u f a c t u r i n g L t d .  v  provincial  legislation.  .U n i t e d G a r m e n t W o r k e r s o f  In  immunity Four  B  America,(94)  the Court e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t a law which i s w i t h i n p r o v i n c i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n under s . 9 2 a p p l i e s t o Indians o f i t s own f o r c e unless  i t affects  jurisdiction Indians".  over  "an i n t e g r a l  part  o f primary  Indians  Lands  reserved  and  I t would be v i r t u a l l y  an argument  i n relation  federal f o r the  impossible t o s u s t a i n  such  to provincial  gaming enactments i n  the f a c e o f t h e u n q u a l i f i e d , e x p l i c i t ,  f e d e r a l divestment o f  c o n t r o l over t h e area found i n t h e C r i m i n a l C o d e . In Court  K r u g e r held that  s . 8 8 excluded  a n d M a n u e l t h e term  v  . T h e Queen,(95)  t h e Supreme  "laws o f g e n e r a l a p p l i c a t i o n " i n  any law t h a t ,  "by i t s e f f e c t ,  s t a t u s o r c a p a c i t y o f a p a r t i c u l a r group"  impairs the  (emphasis  added).  More r e c e n t l y , however, t h e Court l i m i t e d t h e scope o f t h i s exemption by d e f i n i n g which has t h e e f f e c t that  i t does  as a law o f g e n e r a l a p p l i c a t i o n one of impairing Indian  not " o v e r t l y  94  [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1031.  95  [1978] 1 S.C.R. 104.  or colourably  status,  provided  ... s i n g l e out  171  Indians  f o r special  Indians."(96)  treatment  Consequently,  and i m p a i r  their  as Monachan and P e t t e r observe,  i t i s t h e purpose o f t h e law, r a t h e r than determines  whether  s t a t u s as  i t is a  i t s effect,  "law o f g e n e r a l  that  application"  w i t h i n t h e meaning o f s . 8 8 . ( 9 7 ) Provincial excluded  from  gaming this  control  provisions  definition  of  a  would  "law  of  n o t be general  a p p l i c a t i o n " . The r e g u l a t i o n s do not p r e c l u d e n a t i v e groups which have a c h a r i t a b l e f o r and b e i n g granted  or r e l i g i o u s  purpose from  l i c e n c e s t o conduct  bingos  applying and o t h e r  l o t t e r y schemes. Indeed, i n 1986 t h e F e d e r a l Court o f Appeal overruled native  the Minister  Indian  organization  I n c o m e T a xAct.(98) most  Indians  o f N a t i o n a l Revenue charitable  Nonetheless,  and I n d i a n  bands  and g r a n t e d  status  under  a  the  as S t a r r comments, although  a r e poor,  they  are neither  c h a r i t a b l e nor r e l i g i o u s o r g a n i z a t i o n s . ( 9 9 ) Even i f a p r o v i n c i a l general  application"  enactment q u a l i f i e s  i t s application  as a "law o f  t o Indians  will  be  p r e c l u d e d i f i t i s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e I n d i a n A c t " o r any 96 R . V . D i c k ,  [1985] 2 S.C.R. 309.  97 Monachan and P e t t e r , "Developments i n C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Law: The 1985-86 Term", (1987) 9 Supreme Court Law Review 69 a t 162. 98 N a t i v e C o m m u n i c a t i o n s S o c i e t y o f B . C . v . T h e M i n i s t e r o f N a t i o n a l R e v e n u e , (1986) 11(8) Canadian Human R i g h t s Advocate 7. 99 S u p r a f n . 78 a t 10.  172  order,  rule,  noted  above,(100)  exemption  r e g u l a t i o n o r by-law made thereunder".  from  s . 8 7 of  taxation  the  for  I n d i a n  the  As  was  A c t provides  property  interests  an  of  Indians on r e s e r v e s as f o l l o w s : "... the f o l l o w i n g p r o p e r t y i s exempt from t a x a t i o n , namely: (a) the i n t e r e s t of an I n d i a n o r a band i n r e s e r v e or surrendered l a n d s ; and (b) the p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y o f an I n d i a n or band s i t u a t e d on a r e s e r v e ; and no I n d i a n o r band i s s u b j e c t t o t a x a t i o n i n r e s p e c t of the ownership, o c c u p a t i o n or use o f any p r o p e r t y mentioned i n paragraph (a) or (b) or i s otherwise s u b j e c t t o t a x a t i o n i n r e s p e c t of any such p r o p e r t y ; " . For the purposes of s . 8 8 , i t must be determined or  not  the  licensing  of  gambling  whether  activities  can  c a t e g o r i z e d as a form of t a x a t i o n from which r e s e r v e are  exempt.  exemption  As  only  protection  to  Bartlett in  points  respect  financial  out,  of  s . 8 7 will  taxation;  levies  which  it are  be  Indians  afford  an  affords  no  otherwise  c l a s s i f i e d . ( 1 0 1 ) The c o u r t s have d i s t i n g u i s h e d between taxes and  licences  For  example,  Williams,(102) dollar  100  i n the a p p l i c a t i o n  See  in  A t t o r n e y  the Court,  licensing  o f s . 8 7 of the  fee  f o r  Q u e b e c one  under  tax  f n . 79 and surrounding  (1944) 82 C.C.C. 166  Act.  i n c o n s i d e r i n g the nature o f a provincial  tobacco  text.  101 B a r t l e t t , Indians and T a x a t i o n Centre, 1980). 102  G e n e r a l  Indian  (Saskatoon:  (Quebec Ct. S e s s . ) .  Native  Law  v  173  legislation,  drew a d i s t i n c t i o n  between a l i c e n s e which i s  merely a permit and one which i s a form o f t a x a t i o n : ( 1 0 3 ) "... tax is a g e n e r a l word which includes any c o n t r i b u t i o n imposed by a competent a u t h o r i t y t o assure the services of the S t a t e . L i c e n s e would be a p e r m i s s i o n t o do any a c t whatsoever. Although demanded w i t h a view to regulation, i t could nevertheless i n c i d e n t a l l y comprise an amount o f money c a p a b l e of a s s u r i n g the s e r v i c e s o f the S t a t e . From t h i s i t may be r e a l i z e d t h a t i f a l i c e n s e seems t o be imposed s o l e l y t o a s s u r e revenue f o r the S t a t e , such p e r m i t i s no l o n g e r a l i c e n s e but a tax, whatever may be the word used i n the t e x t o f the A c t . " In  British  Conditions licence bingos  Respecting  f e e s of $50 with  prizes  bingos o f f e r i n g minor  Columbia,  licence  for  Licensing  and two  example, of  Lottery  Terms  Events  and  impose  per cent of g r o s s revenues  exceeding  $500  p r i z e s of l e s s than  f e e s would  the  seem t o be  and  of  $10  $500. These i n the  for  for  those  relatively  category  of  a  p e r m i t r a t h e r than a t a x . There  i s , however,  another  the  of  made: t h a t  proceeds  argument  gambling  which  events  might  (which  go  be to  c h a r i t a b l e or r e l i g i o u s o r g a n i z a t i o n s ) are a s u b s t i t u t e f o r tax d o l l a r s .  In o t h e r words, i f the p r o v i n c e d i d not a l l o w  t h e s e groups  t o r a i s e revenues  itself  would  community tax  have  amenities  revenues.  to  f o r themselves,  provide  funded  Provincially  by  the those  licensed  social  the p r o v i n c e services  and  o r g a n i z a t i o n s through gambling,  from  this  p e r s p e c t i v e , i s a form of s u r r o g a t e t a x a t i o n . The concept o f 103 I b i d a t 169, per Guerin J . Sess.  174  true  lotteries  widely  accepted  lotteries, would  as  a  and  however,  require  form  of  indirect  taxation  is  well-documented.(104) Regarding this  fairly  argument  minute  quite quasi-  i s more s p e c u l a t i v e  a n a l y s i s of  provincial  and  social  s e r v i c e s spending p a t t e r n s b e f o r e and a f t e r the expansion of gambling t h a t has Just  as  the  gambling  occurred p a r t i c u l a r l y  Indian  are  bands who  using  it  as  are a  i n the p a s t  interested in  substitute  for  decade.  promoting powers  of  t a x a t i o n , the p r o v i n c i a l governments are a l s o u s i n g gambling revenues as an a l t e r n a t i v e t o d i r e c t t a x a t i o n . One  final  i s s u e r e g a r d i n g the a p p l i c a b i l i t y  the I n d i a n A c t which must be by-laws which reserves.  purport  Section  88  to  examined i s the  authorize  provides  that  which d u p l i c a t e s or c o n f l i c t s w i t h " i n respect of As was  of  impact of band  regulate  provincial a by-law w i l l  gaming  on  legislation not  apply  Indians".  discussed  c o u n c i l s with  and  of s.88  rather  above, s.81 limited  o f the A c t  powers t o  enact  provides  band  by-laws.(105)  104 See e.g. Johnson, "An Economic A n a l y s i s of L o t t e r i e s " , (1976) 24 Canadian Tax J o u r n a l 639; L i v e r n o i s , "The R e d i s t r i b u t i v e E f f e c t s of L o t t e r i e s : Evidence from Canada", (1987) 15 P u b l i c Finance Q u a r t e r l y 339; McLoughlin, "The L o t t e r i e s Tax", (1979) 1 Canadian T a x a t i o n 16 and V a i l l a n c o u r t and Grignon, "Canadian L o t t e r i e s as Taxes: Revenues and Incidence", (1988) 36 Canadian Tax J o u r n a l 369. 105  See  f n . 10 and surrounding  text.  175  In a 1981 d e c i s i o n o f the Quebec Court o f Appeal they categorized  were  as follows:(106)  "The powers c o n f e r r e d by s.81 are f i r s t o f a l l , powers to regulate, and t o r e g u l a t e only "administrative s t a t u t e s " . In other words, a band c o u n c i l has, i n t h i s area, t h e same s o r t o f l e g i s l a t i v e powers as those possessed by the c o u n c i l o f a m u n i c i p a l corporation. The power t o g i v e e f f e c t t o r e g u l a t i o n s cannot extend beyond these administrative statutes; they are a c c e s s o r y and nothing more." The band  councils  are, according  to this  determination,  a  t h i r d - r a t e , r a t h e r than a t h i r d order o f government. There have been attempts by more than 220 band c o u n c i l s t o enact by-laws e n a b l i n g bingo and other l o t t e r y schemes on Indian  reserves  pursuant  passed  i n 1979, were  to  s.81(m)(107).  disallowed  A f f a i r s under t h e power  contained  given  i s that  for this  precedence open l e t t e r dated  action  by the M i n i s t e r in s.82.(108) the  over the Indian  A c t . Starr  to a l l Chiefs  and C o u n c i l s  October  23,  1986,  A l l but  the R e g i o n a l  Criminal reveals  one,  of  Indian  The  reason  Code that,  takes i n an  i n B r i t i s h Columbia Director  o f Economic  Development o f f e r e d the f o l l o w i n g j u s t i f i c a t i o n : ( 1 0 9 ) "As you probably know, the C r i m i n a l Code takes precedence over the Indian A c t . Thus t h e Department has 106 R e S t a c e y a n d M o n t o u r a n d t h e Q u e e n , (2d) 61, p e r B e r n i e r J.A.  (1981) 63  107 "The c o u n c i l o f a band may make by-laws ... f o r any o r all o f the f o l l o w i n g purposes, namely: ... (m) t h e c o n t r o l and p r o h i b i t i o n o f p u b l i c games, s p o r t s , r a c e s , a t h l e t i c c o n t e s t s and other amusements". 108 S t a r r , s u p r a f n . 78 a t 2-3. 109 I b i d a t 4-5.  C.C.  176 had no choice but to disallow the by-laws, notwithstanding our recognition of the economic b e n e f i t s t h a t can be generated by gaming a c t i v i t i e s . " In  other  words,  the  federal  government  considers  bound by the agreement i t made w i t h the p r o v i n c e s  itself  i n 1985  v a c a t e the f i e l d of r e g u l a t i n g l o t t e r y schemes. And, the f a c t t h a t the C r i m i n a l C o d e and f e d e r a l s t a t u t e s , the to p r e v a i l  over the  unprepared  to  under  by-law  the  failure  to  provincial  recognize  The  that  provision,  address  Indian  agreement  i s deemed  f e d e r a l government i s thus  Indian or  bands  have  otherwise,  to  i n t e r e s t s i n the  regarding  despite  the I n d i a n A c t are  former i s ranked above, and latter.  to  jurisdiction  the  power  remedy  the  1985  federal-  over  permitted  gambling. As Lyon i n d i c a t e s , the p r a c t i c e o f i g n o r i n g I n d i a n enactments which p u r p o r t from the the  t o remedy such d e f i c i e n c i e s ,  enactment of s . 8 8 o f the  belief  that  provincial  stems  I n d i a n A c t which  laws  fill  all  induces  legislative  gaps.(110) Starr represents making  argues an  powers  realizing  regarding  the  unnecessarily and  government's own in  in  one  strongest  terms  narrow approach t o band  which  i s at  odds  with  the  this by-law  federal  view of the r o l e t h a t t h i s power w i l l  the  future  aspirations  self-government.(Ill)  She  of  refers  Indian to  110 Lyon, " C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Issues i n N a t i v e Law", (ed.), s u p r a f n . 9 a t 421. 111  that  S t a r r , s u p r a f n . 78 a t 10-15.  two  play  peoples court  i n Morse  both  177  decisions  i n which  intention  of  over  local  affairs  through  arguments  which  acknowledgement  government  to  expand  i n the pursuit  economic  are bolstered  I n d i a nA c t  i s judicial  t h e Canadian  band  government  there  by  the  power  Indian  self-  self-reliance.(112)  recent  expand  of  of the  the  amendments  taxation  made  powers  Her  to the of  band  councils.(113)  This  situation  incontrovertible more  power  Indians as  political  over  than  underscores  federal  power  policies,  even  Affairs  before  there  i s limited  band  gaming,  f o r a  federal  adopted  112 P r o W a s ( Q u e  I b i d v i n c k a g a n . P r o v .  113 A n C-115, 114  trial  an  those  regarding As  long  t o exercise h i s  opportunity  activities  to test  their  the courts.  declaration  notwithstanding  i s  have f a r  themselves.  continues  A c a s e was r e c e n t l y b r o u g h t b e f o r e a  Indians  over band by-laws a u t h o r i z i n g gambling  on t h e r e s e r v e s , validity  to  that the provinces  do t h e a b o r i g i n a l peoples  the Minister of Indian  veto  fact:  what  by their  that  the  two  band  by-laws,  council  disallowance  judge dismissed  the Federal  Court  by  unrelated  to  were  i n  force  by t h e Minister.(114)  t h e a c t i o n on t h e grounds  The that  .  See W h i t e b e a r B a n dC o u n c i l v . C a r p e n t e r s i a l C o u n c i l , [ 1 9 8 2 ] 3 C . N . L . R . 1 8 1 ( S a s k . C . A . i s h B a n d v . B l a c k n e d , [ 1 9 8 6 ] 3 C . N . L . R . 1 6 8 C t . )  A c t t o a m e n d t h e I n d i a nA c t S.C. 1 9 8 6 - 8 7 - 8 8 .  T w i n n e t a l . v . C a n a d a  ( d e s i g n a t e d l a n d s ) , Bill  ( M . I . A . N . D . ) ,  ( 1 9 8 7 ) 6 F.T.R.  178  t h e r e was  no requirement  o f f a i r n e s s i n the e x e r c i s e o f  the  power of d i s a l l o w a n c e and t h a t the purpose o f empowering the M i n i s t e r t o d i s a l l o w by-laws i s i n p a r t t o a l l o w him/her t o take i n t o account band  itself.(115)  l a r g e r i n t e r e s t s going beyond those of the Regarding  gambling by-laws,  these  larger  i n t e r e s t s would be those o f the p r o v i n c e s and o f m a i n t a i n i n g federal-provincial however, t h a t  harmony.  i t was  at  The  least  judge  arguable  did  recognize,  t h a t the  power  d i s a l l o w a n c e has some i m p l i e d l i m i t a t i o n i n t h a t " i t may be used t o f r u s t r a t e  completely  the purposes of the  Act".(116) I t c o u l d be argued t h a t the b l a n k e t o f gambling by-laws i s f r u s t r a t i n g the  economic  independence  cannot get  their  assessment  of t h e i r  of  by-laws b e f o r e v i r e s then  the  If  courts  perhaps a  not  Indian  disallowance  federal policy to  Indians.  of  secure  band  councils  for a  judicial  challenge  to  the  power o f the M i n i s t e r under s . 8 2 might be pursued.  The  foregoing discussion i l l u s t r a t e s  o f the C r i m i n a l C o d e and combined  to  constitute a  control  over  activities  forward,  however,  indicate  the a u t h o r i z a t i o n and  reserves.  area The  of  r e g u l a t i o n of l o t t e r y  I b i d at  45.  116  I b i d a t 44 per S t r a y e r J .  provincial  arguments  t h a t the p r o v i n c i a l  115  s e c t i o n 2 0 7  s e c t i o n 8 8 o f the I n d i a n A c  significant on  that  seal  put  around  schemes i s not  179  watertight.  But  these  arguments  can be  criticized  basis that  they d e f i n e I n d i a n power t o c o n t r o l  reference  to  federal  and  provincial  on  the  gambling  jurisdiction.  by  They  proceed on t h e b a s i s t h a t those powers, r a t h e r than those o f Indians,  are  the  crucial  determinants.  As  was  stated  e a r l i e r , even i f p r o v i n c i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n were t o be r e j e c t e d and be  r e p l a c e d by f e d e r a l unacceptable  final  section  to of  r e g u l a t i o n o f gambling, t h i s  those this  who  favour  chapter  will  Indian be  would  control.  directed  to  examination o f these a s s e r t i o n s o f I n d i a n j u r i s d i c t i o n .  The an  180  Indian  Jurisdiction  The a u t h o r i z a t i o n , o p e r a t i o n on r e s e r v e s  i s one aspect  resolution  by  division  the  o f power  between  During t h e p a s t to  certain  o f a much l a r g e r i s s u e r e q u i r i n g  Canadian  and Canada's indigenous  and r e g u l a t i o n o f gaming  polity:  the  allocation  or  f e d e r a l , p r o v i n c i a l governments  peoples.  few decades , t h e c l a i m s  inalienable rights,  particularly  of the l a t t e r t o l a n d , but  a l s o t o a s i g n i f i c a n t measure o f self-government, have been asserted  in  fundamental nations  the  proposition  rather  sovereignty  strongest  than  that  terms. native  dependents  stem  peoples  o r denied  As Flanagan observes,  from  are  of the state.  may have been ignored  was not e x t i n g u i s h e d .  They  the  sovereign  While  that  i n the past, i t "[a] sovereign  n a t i o n r e t a i n s i t s r i g h t o f s e l f - d e t e r m i n a t i o n even when i t is  under  external  domination. (117) 11  Acceptance  of  this  p o s i t i o n i n v o l v e s a r e d e f i n i t i o n o f e s t a b l i s h e d views. Thus, f o r example, Venne o f f e r s t h e f o l l o w i n g r e - e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e powers and f u n c t i o n s o f band "Bands and band "creatures of m u n i c i p a l i t i e s and C h i e f s and C o u n c i l s  councils:(118)  councils are often described as statute", created as federal e x e r c i s i n g d e l e g a t e d powers. I n d i a n have r e j e c t e d t h i s a n a l y s i s and a r e  117 "From I n d i a n T i t l e t o A b o r i g i n a l R i g h t s " i n K n a f l a (ed.), Law and J u s t i c e i n New Land: e t c . (Toronto: C a r s w e l l , 1986) p. 99. 118 Venne, "Indian J u r i s d i c t i o n " i n INAC, Gaming on Reserves. supra f n . 5 a t 2.  181 asserting a contrary proposition: I n d i a n governments have e x t e n s i v e powers of self-government, including t a x a t i o n , which are not d e l e g a t e d from the federal government. The source of Indian government j u r i s d i c t i o n i s not the I n d i a n Act, but r a t h e r a p r e e x i s t i n g or " a b o r i g i n a l " r i g h t of s e l f government t h a t has not been e x t i n g u i s h e d . " There  is a  the h i s t o r i c a l To  some  level,  growing  roots  extent,  i s now  body  and  their  of  l i t e r a t u r e which  l e g a l status existence,  examines  of these claims.(119)  at  beyond d i s p u t e w i t h the  least  on  a  symbolic  enactment of  s . 3 5 of  the C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t , 1 9 8 2 , which r e c o g n i z e s and "existing  aboriginal  and  treaty  rights  of  the  affirms  aboriginal  peoples of Canada".(120) The  doctrine  indicates, defines  a  the  of  basic  principle  constitutional  a b o r i g i n a l peoples and Canadian  legal  institutions.(121) rights"  as  aboriginal  The  enshrined  of  and  the  is,  the  as  common  between  the  Slattery law Crown  i n t e r a c t i o n between  native  precise in  Canadian  links  regulates  system  rights  rights,  content Constitution  of  laws  that and the and  "aboriginal is,  however,  unclear.  119 e.g. B o l d t and Long (eds.), s u p r a f n . 3; Flanagan, s u p r a f n . 117; Morse, s u p r a f n . 9 and S l a t t e r y , "Understanding A b o r i g i n a l R i g h t s " , (1987) 66 Canadian Bar Review 725. 120 Because of the broad d e f i n i t i o n g i v e n t o " a b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e s " i n s . 3 5 - i t i n c l u d e s the Indian, I n u i t and M e t i s peoples - the p o t e n t i a l impact of t h i s p r o v i s i o n extends beyond n a t i v e I n d i a n s . 121  S l a t t e r y , s u p r a f n . 119  at  732.  t  182  Mason d e s c r i b e s s.35  as, a t a minimum, s e t t i n g a  floor  f o r n a t i v e r i g h t s . ( 1 2 2 ) In Lyon's view, t h e r e i s a range p o s s i b i l i t i e s encompassed by t h i s p r o v i s i o n which go  of  beyond  t i t l e t o l a n d and h u n t i n g and f i s h i n g r i g h t s t o i n c l u d e the r i g h t t o l i v e under t r a d i t i o n a l be  governed  by  customary  forms of government and  laws.(123)  There  to  is  increasing  r e c o g n i t i o n b e i n g g i v e n t o the p o s i t i o n t h a t s.35  recognizes  the e x i s t e n c e o f a r i g h t t o self-government, as  a  those  "third of  order  the  of  federal  government" and  with  provincial  powers p a r a l l e l  governments.(124)  concepts of a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s and o f n a t i v e have  evolved  inextricably  rapidly connected.  relationship  in  advocated  as  an  aboriginal  rights  government. (125)  in  recent  One  terms:  aboriginal are  years  observer has  symbiotic  right,  advanced  Certainly,  as  to  to The  self-government  and  have  become  characterized  the  self-government  is  and  of  aspects  have  often described  some  a  variety  of native  self-  constitutional  s t a t u s and p r o t e c t i o n , the r i g h t t o self-government  must  be  anchored t o some source i n the C o n s t i t u t i o n . ( 1 2 6 )  122 Mason, supra f n . 3 a t 123  Lyon, supra f n . 110 a t  438. 419.  124 S l a t t e r y , "The Hidden C o n s t i t u t i o n : A b o r i g i n a l R i g h t s i n Canada", i n B o l d t and Long (eds.), supra f n . 3 a t 137. 125 Tennant, " A b o r i g i n a l R i g h t s and the Penner Report on I n d i a n S e l f Government" i n B o l d t and Long (eds.), supra f n . 3 a t 321. 126 Nakaratsu,  supra f n . 10 a t 81.  183  The  recognition  aboriginal Committee  right  o f t h e r i g h t o f self-government as an  was  advocated  o f t h e House  self-government  strongly  o f Commons  i n the early  which  1980s.  s.91(24) o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t ,  by  the  examined  reserved  relate  t o the provinces  t o "Indians  Parliament  should  and Lands then  that  1867 s h o u l d be i n t e r p r e t e d (including  i n s.92) i n s o f a r  reserved  proceed  Indian  I t recommended  t o a l l o w P a r l i a m e n t t o enact laws i n a l l f i e l d s those  Special  as they  f o r the Indians".  t o vacate  these  areas o f  j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e c o g n i z e d I n d i a n governments. Consequently, virtually  the e n t i r e  range  delivery,  law enforcement and a d j u d i c a t i o n  available t o a native In  t h e Committee's  their  legitimacy  Constitution aboriginal  government w i t h i n  view, not  itself,  o f law-making,  native  from  policy,  powers would be  it's t e r r i t o r y . (127)  governments  Parliament,  but from  program  would  nor  the p r e - e x i s t i n g  peoples which t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n  derive  from  the  rights of  does n o t c r e a t e ,  but merely recognizes.(128) The  precise  recognized  nature  of the aboriginal  by s.35 i s t h e s u b j e c t  mostly stemming  of considerable  from t h e i n c l u s i o n o f t h e phrase  a b o r i g i n a l and t r e a t y r i g h t s " w i t h i n there  has been  rights  no  legislative  that are debate, "existing  i t s terms. I n a d d i t i o n ,  action  to  implement  the  127 Canada House o f Commons, Report o f t h e S p e c i a l Committee on I n d i a n Self-Government (Penner Report) (Ottawa: Supply and S e r v i c e s , 1983) a t 329. 128  I b i d a t 328.  184  recommendations have  the  o f t h e House  constitutional  provincial  o f Commons Subcommittee,  conferences  attended  by  nor  federal,  and n a t i v e l e a d e r s w i t h t h e aim o f f l e s h i n g out  the p r e c i s e scope o f t h i s p r o v i s i o n met w i t h any s u c c e s s . There i s a measure o f consensus among academic w r i t e r s that  an  aboriginal  extinguished, legislation,  but is  or  treaty  simply an  right  which  restricted  existing  right  has  or  not  limited  within  been by  s.35.  A  r e p r e s e n t a t i v e statement o f t h i s view i s p r o v i d e d by McNeil, who  propounds  this  test  for  determining  "existing"  rights:(129) "A workable t e s t t h a t might be a p p l i e d t o determine whether a p a r t i c u l a r r i g h t has been e x t i n g u i s h e d o r merely rendered u n e x e r c i s a b l e would be t o ask whether the right would be restored i f the legislation a f f e c t i n g i t was r e p e a l e d . I f the answer i s no, then the r i g h t must have been e x t i n g u i s h e d ; i f yes, i t must s t i l l e x i s t and t h e r e f o r e i s e n t i t l e d t o c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o t e c t i o n under s e c t i o n 35(1)." The  c r i m i n a l law i s one  area  i n which I n d i a n  peoples  a r e c l a i m i n g t h e i r r i g h t t o s e l f - d e t e r m i n a t i o n . Venne o f f e r s t h i s assessment:(130) "The C r i m i n a l Code i s a law o f g e n e r a l a p p l i c a t i o n t h a t does not s p e c i f y as a p p l y i n g t o I n d i a n s . I t no doubt was assumed t h a t Indians, b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d British s u b j c e t s , were t o be covered by t h e Code. How does the 129 McNeil, "The C o n s t i t u t i o n a l R i g h t s o f t h e A b o r i g i n a l Peoples o f Canada", (1982) 4 Supreme Court Law Reporter 255 a t 258. See a l s o S l a t t e r y , "The C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Guarantee o f A b o r i g i n a l and T r e a t y R i g h t s " , (1983) 8 Queen's Law J o u r n a l 232. 130 Venne, s u p r a f n . 118 a t 25.  185 C r i m i n a l Code r e l a t e , i f a t a l l , t o the continuance o f Indian customary " c r i m i n a l " law? There has been no s p e c i f i c s t a t u t e t e r m i n a t i n g the Indian law, thus i t continues t o " e x i s t " . Indian c r i m i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n has been removed by f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l p o l i c y , but these p o l i c i e s cannot be d e f i n e d as an extinguishment. 11  I f , to  use  repealed  McNeil's  lands,  could  quite  inherent  the  C r i m i n a l  e a s i l y be  Gaming  native  revived. According rights  on  would,  Reserves,  C r i m i n a l C o d e and focus  to  C o d e were  r i g h t to self-determination  aboriginal  on  To  the  vis-a-vis i t s applicability  their  Force  test,  take  peoples  on  this  to t h i s  according  to  to  precedence  be  on  issue  scenario, the  Task  over  the  the I n d i a n Act.(131)  s p e c i f i c a l l y on the  l o t t e r y scheme p r o v i s i o n s  of the C o d e , i t can be argued q u i t e s t r o n g l y t h a t they have, in e f f e c t ,  already  been  the  leaving  the  area,  Indian  jurisdiction  above,  there  traditional  is  native  ample  Indian  t h a t an still  leader  way  over  the  field.  an  131  S u p r a fn. 4 at  132  See  f n . 76 and  a As  that  evacuation  re-activation was  gambling of  unrealistic  i n the  late  of  is  to  a  native  form i t assumes today.(132)  i t would be  of  illustrated  essential part  aboriginal r i g h t exercised  take i t s a n c i e n t  federal  for  evidence  i n the  notes,  by  clear  activity,  c u l t u r e , although not one  repealed  As  expect  1980s would  form.(133)  28.  surrounding t e x t .  133 Ahenakew, " A b o r i g i n a l T i t l e and A b o r i g i n a l R i g h t s : The Impossible Task of I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and D e f i n i t i o n " , i n B o l d t and Long (eds.), s u p r a f n . 3 a t 27.  186  This  i s , in  fact,  the  basis  on  which  several  bands are c l a i m i n g the power t o conduct gambling on  reserves.  and  In B r i t i s h  Kitimaat  tribal  Columbia,  councils  operations  f o r example, the  assert  that  Indian  Gitksan  gambling  is  e x i s t i n g a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t w i t h i n the meaning o f s.35 Constitution opposition  Act, to  1982.(134)  these  exclusive  provincial  games  chance,  of  sooner or As  In  the  assertions jurisdiction  the  conflict  face  and  of  the  provincial  counter-claims  regarding  will  of  an  have  of  lotteries to  be  and  resolved  later.  experience  important,  i n the  United  States  has  shown,  i t is  from the n a t i v e p e r s p e c t i v e , t h a t i t be done i n a  manner which does not over I n d i a n a f f a i r s .  c r e a t e or enhance p r o v i n c i a l c o n t r o l  One  s o l u t i o n which might be pursued i s  the amendment of the C r i m i n a l Code and indicate clearly  o f the I n d i a n A c t  t h a t n e i t h e r f e d e r a l nor p r o v i n c i a l  gaming  enactments apply t o l o t t e r y schemes conducted on r e s e r v e s band  councils.  unilaterally  by  It  is  the  unlikely  federal  that  this  government  would  without  to  be  by  done  extensive  c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h the p r o v i n c e s . I t i s e q u a l l y u n l i k e l y t h a t the  provinces  would  c o n s i d e r a b l e concessions  concede  to  such  changes  without  b e i n g made t o them, by the f e d e r a l  government.  134 S t a r r , supra f n . 78 a t 35. The G i t k s a n p o s i t i o n i s s e t out i n more d e t a i l i n an i n t e r v i e w w i t h t r i b a l p r e s i d e n t , Don Ryans r e p o r t e d i n Kahtpu, v o l . 6(11), 6/6/88.  187  A  more  satisfactory,  long-term  solution  would  be  an  amendment t o the C o n s t i t u t i o n t o p r o v i d e , w i t h i n a r i g h t  of  aboriginal  on  Indian  self-government,  lands.  solution  The  are not  constitutional  jurisdiction  immediate  prospects  f a v o u r a b l e i n view conferences  C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t ,  over for  o f the  mandated  by  gaming  this  kind  of  of  the  failure  s . 3 5 . 1 of  the  1 9 8 1 t o reach any agreement r e g a r d i n g th  issue. The  other  alternative  is  adjudication:  asking  the  c o u r t s t o determine j u r i s d i c t i o n over gaming on I n d i a n l a n d s in  light  of  s . 3 5  of  the  C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t ,1 9 8 1 .  not, as y e t , a l a r g e body o f case law on the impact o f t h i s constitutional  provision.  A  recent decision  of the O n t a r i o  Court of Appeal, however, sounds a c a u t i o n a r y note. In R . v . Agawa,(135) to  fish  the Court was  without  a  asked t o d e c i d e whether the  licence  was  an  "existing  treaty  right right"  w i t h i n the terms of s . 3 5 . In the a p p e l l a n t ' s case, the Court found  that  his  extinguished, requirement.  treaty  but I t went  fishing  merely on  to  rights  restricted say  that  had by  a  hunting  r i g h t s c o u l d not be d i v o r c e d from the r e a l i t i e s present-day  Canada,  which  required  the  not  licensing and  licensing  conservation  135  s u b j e c t t o reasonable l i m i t a t i o n s ,  requirements,  d e s p i t e the  [1988] 3 C.N.L.R.73 (Ont. C.A.).  fact  fishing  of l i f e  management o f f i s h s t o c k s . A c c o r d i n g l y , I n d i a n t r e a t y were h e l d t o be  been  the  in and  rights such  s . l of  as the  There  is  188  C h a r t e r o f R i g h t s a n d F r e e d o m s does not Constitution was  said,  of the  involved  exercise  of  a b a l a n c i n g of  Indian t r e a t y  rights,  the  and  interests  Court of Appeal d i d not  interests  that  scope  of  might be  taken  "existing  s p e c i f y the into  aboriginal  could, p o t e n t i a l l y include  values  account and  e n t i r e range of in  treaty  determining rights".  enunciated  by  C a b a z o n  B a n d o  jurisdiction interests  the  can  are  remains t o be  U.S.  Supreme  f M i s s i o n  be  limited  adjudged  to  by be  Court  in  allow p r o v i n c i a l i n t e r e s t s a c r i t i c a l  role.  years  between band c o u n c i l s exclusive law  and  and  ago, the  that would  federal  native have  procedure. 1985,  S u p r a fn.  19.  As  a  result  of  a  will and  an  matter  government, which  a  It  gaming i s  been  tribal  state  treaty rights  j u r i s d i c t i o n over both I n d i a n a f f a i r s and  agreement of  136  established  .  that  Supreme Court of Canada and  twenty  -  legislation i f  endorse such an approach t o a b o r i g i n a l  which  California v  Indians,(136) state  that  s u f f i c i e n t l y compelling.  seen whether the  T h i s c h a p t e r has  It  p r o v i n c i a l i n t e r e s t s . I f i t does,  then t h i s t e s t bears more than a p a s s i n g s i m i l a r i t y t o  issue  it  r i g h t s of o t h e r s .  The  the  A c t . The  apply t o s . 3 5 of  has  criminal  federal-provincial  on which Indians were not  consulted,  the  189  rules and and  regarding  i t was transformed provincial  struggle  over  outcome o f t h i s the  c o n t r o l over  much  sovereignty.  lottery  schemes were changed  i n t o a d i s p u t e between band c o u n c i l s  governments. t h e power  to  There gamble  i s , as on  a  result,  Indian  lands.  s t r u g g l e c o u l d have an important  larger  issue  of  the  struggle  impact  for  a The on  Indian  190 C H A P T E R P R O V I N C I A L  G A M I N G  P r o v i n c i a l  G a m i n g  The might  focus  be  immediately  T H E  E X A M P L E  O F  B R I T I S H  C O L U M B I A  C o n t r o l  of  termed  transformation  C O N T R O L :  S I X  the the  of  previous hidden  lottery  obvious  C r i m i n a l Code.(1)  on  two  chapters  implications  schemes  the  in  face  was  of  that  of  on  what  the  they  s e c t i o n  legal  are  not  2 0 7 of  These c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i s s u e s are of  the  crucial  s i g n i f i c a n c e n o n e t h e l e s s . In t h i s f i n a l chapter a t t e n t i o n i s directed  an  equally  important  d i s c e r n i b l e consequence of the schemes: regulate  the  of  more  i t has  authority,  d e c r i m i n a l i z a t i o n of l o t t e r y  provincial  gaming  or  is  still  been  prohibited  licensed  i s being  by  by  the  conducted  the  provincially-based  public  gaming.  federal  by  the  helpful,  to  If  a  exemption  regulatory  province from  the  purposes  of  i s to  take  at t h i s juncture,  s . 2 0 7 : 1 R.S.C. 1985,  C.C-46  to  s e t out  the  provincial itself.  to  control  advantage  sanctions,  following  C o d e  decriminalization  structures  criminal  the  C r i m i n a l  province  inaugurate some system f o r r e g u l a t i n g gambling For  controls  appropriate  I m p l i c i t i n t h i s f e d e r a l scheme of p a r t i a l are  immediately  l e g a l i z e d l o t t e r i e s and q u a s i - l o t t e r i e s .  Gambling unless  growth  and  it  of  the must  activities.  analysis,  it  is  express terms  of  191 *'s.207(l) Notwithstanding any o f t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s P a r t r e l a t i n g t o gambling and b e t t i n g , i t i s l a w f u l (a) f o r t h e government o f a p r o v i n c e , e i t h e r alone or i n conjunction with t h e government o f another p r o v i n c e , t o conduct and manage a l o t t e r y scheme i n t h a t p r o v i n c e , o r i n t h a t and such o t h e r p r o v i n c e , i n accordance w i t h any law enacted by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e o f that province; (b) f o r a c h a r i t a b l e o r r e l i g i o u s o r g a n i z a t i o n , pursuant t o a l i c e n c e i s s u e d by t h e L i e u t e n a n t Governor i n C o u n c i l o f a p r o v i n c e o r by such o t h e r person o r a u t h o r i t y i n t h e p r o v i n c e as may be s p e c i f i e d by t h e L i e u t e n a n t Governor i n C o u n c i l t h e r e o f . t o conduct and manage a l o t t e r y scheme i n t h a t p r o v i n c e i f the proceeds from t h e l o t t e r y scheme a r e used for a c h a r i t a b l e o r r e l i g i o u s o b j e c t o r purpose; (c) f o r t h e board o f a f a i r o r e x h i b i t i o n o r an operator of a concession l e a s e d by t h a t board, t o conduct and manage a l o t t e r y scheme i n a p r o v i n c e where the L i e u t e n a n t Governor i n C o u n c i l o f t h e p r o v i n c e ...has (1) d e s i g n a t e d t h a t f a i r o r e x h i b i t i o n as a f a i r o r e x h i b i t i o n where a l o t t e r y scheme may be conducted and managed, and ( i i ) i s s u e d a l i c e n c e f o r t h e conduct and management o f a l o t t e r y scheme t o t h a t board o r o p e r a t o r ; (d) f o r any person, pursuant t o a l i c e n c e i s s u e d bv the L i e u t e n a n t Governor i n C o u n c i l . . . t o conduct and manage a l o t t e r y scheme a t a p u b l i c p l a c e o f amusement i n that province.... (2) S u b j e c t t o t h i s A c t a l i c e n c e i s s u e d by o r under t h e a u t h o r i t y o f t h e L i e u t e n a n t Governor i n C o u n c i l .... may c o n t a i n such terms and c o n d i t i o n s r e l a t i n g t o t h e conduct, management and o p e r a t i o n o f o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e l o t t e r y scheme t o which t h e l i c e n c e r e l a t e s as the L i e u t e n a n t Governor i n C o u n c i l ... o r any law enacted by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e of that province may p r e s c r i b e . " (Emphasis added) Under designated scheme":  this  legislative  as q u a l i f i e d a provincial  organizations;  fair  concessionaires;  and  system,  t o "conduct  government; and any  four  and manage  c h a r i t a b l e or  exhibition  person  parties  at  a  a  lottery  religious  boards  public  are  place  and of  192  amusement. Two accordance under the may  r e g u l a t o r y c o n f i g u r a t i o n s were p r e s c r i b e d : i n  with  any  law,  for  a  p r o v i n c i a l government  a u t h o r i t y of a p r o v i n c i a l l y  and  i s s u e d l i c e n c e , which  c o n t a i n terms and c o n d i t i o n s r e l a t i n g t o the management,  conduct  and  operation  of  the  lottery  scheme,  for  the  remaining t h r e e p a r t i e s . ( 2 ) Although not a l l p r o v i n c e s have embraced i t t o the same extent,(3)  there  has,  overall,  been a massive expansion  legalized  gambling. A c c o r d i n g l y ,  evolution  of  new  regulatory  this  has  structures  necessitated within  of the  provincial  governments. In western Canada, f o r example, t h e r e c u r r e n t l y exist  the  Alberta  Manitoba  and  L o t t e r i e s Foundation,  British  Columbia  Gaming  B r i t i s h Columbia L o t t e r y C o r p o r a t i o n .  the  Commissions  operation  Manitoba and  of  true  the  Interprovincial  lotteries  Yukon and Lottery  i n Alberta,  which  the is  co-ordinates Saskatchewan,  North West T e r r i t o r i e s , Corporation,  and  In a d d i t i o n , t h e r e  the Western Canada L o t t e r i e s Foundation, which the  Saskatchewan,  is  and the  the co-  o r d i n a t i n g body f o r a l l p r o v i n c i a l t r u e l o t t e r y schemes, the area has  i n which the  g r e a t e s t expansion  in legalized  gambling  occurred.  2 When t h i s p r o v i s i o n was f i r s t enacted i n 1969, the f e d e r a l government was a l s o designated as e l i g i b l e t o "conduct and manage a l o t t e r y scheme i n accordance w i t h r e g u l a t i o n s made by the Governor i n C o u n c i l ..." T h i s was r e p e a l e d i n 1985: S.C. 1985, c.52. 3 For a comparison of the extent of gambling a c r o s s Canada, see Beare e t a l . , L e g a l i z e d Gaming i n Canada. 1988 (Ottawa: M i n i s t r y o f the S o l i c i t o r General, 1988).  193  Government rubric  of  regulation  administrative  of  this  law.  One  type of  comes the  key  t r e a t i s e s on the t o p i c notes t h a t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e as  a  consequence  diversity  of  countries  in  has  the  a  rapid  twentieth  growth  Canada  century,  and  the  increasingly  a c c e s s and  activities  is  ability  another  the  in  to  facet  evolved  scope and  and other  corresponding  At every l e v e l ,  involved  a f f a i r s of i t s c i t i z e n s .  person's  in  the  Canadian  law  action  i t to legal control.(4)  become  l i v e s and  the  administrative  need t o s u b j e c t state  of  under  in  the  regulating  the  Provincial regulation engage of  in legal  this  of  gambling  administrative  expansion. In action  this  r e s u l t i n g from  will  be  law.  The  new  and  chapter,  this the  s c r u t i n i z e d , using latter  i s , as  new  field  of  administrative  to  the  Criminal  precepts  of  amendment the  Thomas p o i n t s  out,  open-ended arena of p r a c t i c e and  Code  administrative a  comparatively  study:(5)  "Defined broadly, i t i n v o l v e s the o f f i c i a l means t h a t s o c i e t y adopts t o c o n t r o l how a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c i e s make d e c i s i o n s t h a t a f f e c t i n d i v i d u a l s , groups and o r g a n i z a t i o n s . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , i t r e f e r s t o t h a t p o r t i o n o f s t a t u t e law which p r e s c r i b e s the s t r u c t u r e and f u n c t i o n s o f departments and agencies, g r a n t s them a u t h o r i t y t o make r u l e s and d e c i s i o n s , p r o v i d e s f o r the s u p e r v i s i o n and use of d i s c r e t i o n a r y a u t h o r i t y , and s e t s f o r t h remedies i n the event o f i l l e g a l behaviour or procedural irregularities on the part of 4 Dussault and Borgeat, A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law: A T r e a t i s e ed.) V o l . I (Toronto: C a r s w e l l , 1985) p.11.  (2nd  5 Thomas, " A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law Reform: Legal v s . p o l i t i c a l c o n t r o l s on a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d i s c r e t i o n " , (1984) 27 Canadian Public Administration 120.  194 a d m i n i s t r a t i v e e n t i t i e s . I t i s almost t r i t e t o observe that ensuring t h e accuracy, integrity, fairness, effectiveness and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y of administrative decision-making r e p r e s e n t s an enormous c h a l l e n g e when the scope and complexity o f government has expanded so greatly." Considerations examination territory.  of  of  gaming  Instead,  time  and  controls  attention  space  in  will  preclude  each  province  be c o n c e n t r a t e d  an and  on t h e  s i t u a t i o n i n B r i t i s h Columbia, which, i n terms o f t h e l e v e l of  l e g a l i z e d gambling  is  not a t y p i c a l  i t p e r m i t s and how i t i s c o n t r o l l e d ,  among  t h e western  provinces.  Taking the  quotation  s e t out above as a reasonable d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e  functions  of administrative  will utilize function, Columbia  law, t h e f o l l o w i n g  discussion  i t s indices of statutory authority,  structure,  discretion has chosen  and remedies to regulate  t o examine  gaming  over  how  British  the past  decades, and t h e l e g a l i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e c h o i c e s  two  t h a t have  been made.  Models o f D e c r i m i n a l i z a t i o n Before p r o c e e d i n g w i t h t h e s t a t e d t a s k o f a n a l y z i n g t h e regulation priori  o f gaming  issue  to  decriminalization  be  in British addressed,  which  was  Columbia, i . e . the  adopted  there  i s an a  structure  i n 1969,  of  i . e . - the  substitution of p r o v i n c i a l regulation or control i n place of federal  prohibition.  This  will  provide  a  useful  context  195  against  which  to  assess  subsequent  developments  in  provincial policy. As  was  federal it of  discussed  briefly  government a c t e d  i n Chapter  to decriminalize  Two,  when t h e  lottery  schemes,  d i d n o t opt f o r t h e "do n o t h i n g " a l t e r n a t i v e t o t h e use the c r i m i n a l  categorized  law o r what  as  the  Skolnick  and Dombrink  "nullification  have  model"  of  decriminalization  o f v i c e . ( 6 ) Rather, i t chose t o adopt what  they  "licensing"  term  a  decriminalization(7) permit o r s t a t e gambling  have  regulatory  model  because gambling i s allowed under  operation.  certainly  decriminalization.  or  Consequently,  not disappeared  legal with  of state  controls  on  t h e onset o f  As S k o l n i c k and Dombrink observe,(8)  "the l e g i s l a t i v e p r o h i b i t i o n may be l i f t e d , but t h e government does not r e t r e a t . I f anything, regulation may o f f e r a p u r e r case o f " c o n t r o l " than p r o h i b i t i o n . " Although t h e concept o f d e c r i m i n a l i z a t i o n p e r m i s s i v e , i t i s , when implemented, f r e q u e n t l y i n t e r v e n t i o n i s t and c o e r c i v e has  character.  i s apparently of a highly  One area where t h i s  been p a r t i c u l a r l y e v i d e n t i s i n l i q u o r c o n t r o l p o l i c y i n  both  Canada  World  War  and t h e U n i t e d  experiments  resounding f a i l u r e ,  with  States.  After  alcohol  prohibition  they were r e p l a c e d  the p o s t - F i r s t met  i n both c o u n t r i e s  6 S k o l n i c k and Dombrink, "The L e g a l i z a t i o n o f Deviance", (1978) 16 C r i m i n o l o g y 193 a t 200. 7 I b i d a t 204. 8 I b i d a t 196.  with by  196  s t r i c t a l c o h o l c o n t r o l , which, i n the words o f one "aimed  to  power  s u b s t a n t i a l l y strengthen  and  system  of  effective  involvement  ...  regulation  far  than  anything  government r e g u l a t i o n but  also  model  the  of  The  unrestrained  more  freedom  c o r o l l a r y of  playing of  not  government  administer intrusive  established".(9) only  marketplace. i s used,  this,  state When  state  a and  Thus,  prohibition, a  regulatory  control  noted  of  bingo,  expands  regulation  causes, or has  Kane,  i s that,  when  such  necessarily  Part  of  restricts  the  implies  others a  in  tolerance  some of  the  rationale  d r i n k or gamble t o excess  and/or  as  purchase of l o t t e r y t i c k e t s  it  individuals.(10)  themselves  by  s o c i a l or economic a c t i v i t i e s ,  p a t e r n a l i s t i c . ( 1 1 ) Those who injuring  pervasive,  before  the consumption o f a l c o h o l , the the  and  government  contracts.  government r e g u l a t e s  or  enhance  construct  replaced  decriminalization  r a t h e r than  to  and  observer,  way.  9 L e v i n e , "The b i r t h of American a l c o h o l c o n t r o l : p r o h i b i t i o n , t h e power e l i t e , and the problem of lawlessness", (1985) Contemporary Drug Problems 63 a t  risk While  conduct  the p o t e n t i a l f o r harm, as Hawkins and  is  that  Thomas  97.  10 Kane, Consumers and R e g u l a t o r s : I n t e r v e n t i o n i n the F e d e r a l R e g u l a t o r y Process (Montreal: I.R.P.P.,1980) p.8. 11 Breyer o f f e r s the f o l l o w i n g e x p l a n a t i o n o f p a t e r n a l i s m as a j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r government r e g u l a t i o n : "Although i n some cases the f u l l and adequate i n f o r m a t i o n needed t o reach a r a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n may be a v a i l a b l e t o the decision-maker i n the marketplace, some may argue t h a t he w i l l n e v e r t h e l e s s make the wrong d e c i s i o n and t h e r e f o r e government r e g u l a t i o n i s needed." Breyer, "Analyzing Regulatory F a i l u r e e t c . " , (1979) 92 Harvard Law Review 549 a t 558-59.  197  argue,(12)  i t is a  limited  t o l e r a n c e and  i t also  implies  t h a t the government knows b e s t . It  may  which may control  also  not  is a  be  mutually  profitable  State-operated potential.  facilitate  government  compatible.  source  lotteries  The  other  also  paternalism  of  For  government's  criminal  need  prohibition  for  which  liquor  revenue.(13)  revenue-generating  inherent  in  consumption o f a l c o h o l o r l o t t e r i e s must be the  example,  government have  objectives  revenue.  controlled  r e c o n c i l e d with  Regulation,  i s essentially  unlike  one-dimensional,  f r e q u e n t l y must accommodate a number o f competing g o a l s . Thus, 1969  the  entailed  simplicity  of  complexity perhaps,  of a  immediately  d e c r i m i n a l i z a t i o n of a  shift  criminal  "from  development  the  prohibition  administrative with  ready o r equipped  to  gambling  effected  relative to  the  which  few  conceptual  subtlety  regulation."(14)  in  and  It  was,  provinces  were  handle.  12 Hawkins and Thomas, "The Enforcement Process i n R e g u l a t o r y B u r e a u c r a c i e s " i n Hawkins and Thomas (eds.) E n f o r c i n g R e g u l a t i o n (Boston: K l u w e r - N i j h o f f , 1984) pp.3-22 a t 4. 13 Acheson, "Revenue v s . P r o t e c t i o n : the p r i c i n g o f wine by the L.C.B.O.", (1977) 10 Canadian J o u r n a l of Economics 246. Acheson a l s o p o i n t s out t h a t l i q u o r c o n t r o l a l s o r e p r e s e n t s an o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r o t e c t domestic producers of a l c o h o l i c drinks. 14 S k o l n i c k and Dombrink, supra fn.6 a t  194.  198  As  was  demonstrated  in  Chapter  Two,  the  d e c r i m i n a l i z e l o t t e r y schemes came p r i n c i p a l l y which,  prior  pursuing  the  to  1969,  was  possibility  The  province  the  C r i m i n a l  of  the  only  extensive  pressure  from Quebec,  province legalized  actively lotteries.  immediately took advantage o f the amendment t o  the Regie des  C o d e and  created  l o t e r i e s e t courses  two  new  Crown  du Quebec and  corporations:  the  Societe  d ' e x p l o i t a t i o n des l o t e r i e s e t courses du Quebec.(15) I t arguably new  the o n l y p r o v i n c e  even m i n i m a l l y  prepared  was  for this  power. Nonetheless, the o t h e r p r o v i n c e s were not slow t o  utilize  i t and  during  the  analogous  to  such bodies gaming was  lottery  early  appear u n t i l  be  to  the the  schemes p r o l i f e r a t e d  1970s, Regie  but  and  the  across  administrative Societe  did  Canada  structures  not  generally  f o l l o w i n g decade.(16) While the absence o f  d i d not n e c e s s a r i l y mean t h a t the r e g u l a t i o n of l a c k i n g i n the  seen i n the  context  other p r o v i n c e s ,  i t was,  as  will  o f B r i t i s h Columbia, o f a much more  a d h o c , u n s t r u c t u r e d and  informal  nature.  15 L o i s u r l e s l o t e r i e s e t c o u r s e s , S.Q. 1969, Regie's main f u n c t i o n was t o s u p e r v i s e horse r a c i n g and the i s s u i n g o f l i c e n c e s f o r c h a r i t a b l e gaming. The S o c i e t e was s e t up t o conduct p r o v i n c i a l l o t t e r i e s .  c. 2  16 The Manitoba L o t t e r i e s and Gaming C o n t r o l Commission was e s t a b l i s h e d i n 1980 ( T h e L o t t e r i e s a n d G a m i n g C o n t r o l A c S.M. 1980, c.61); the A l b e r t a Gaming Commission was e s t a b l i s h e d i n 1981 ( A l b e r t a O r d e r - i n - C o u n c i l 124/81) and the B r i t i s h Columbia Gaming Commission was e s t a b l i s h e d i n 1987 (B.C. O r d e r - i n - C o u n c i l 612/87).  199  A  R e g u l a t o r y H i s t o r y In  this  control  in  the  demonstrate and  section  ««mjng C o n t r o l i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a  ftf  a  brief  province  will  i t s chronological  t o i n d i c a t e the  factual  legal  be  account  offered  evolution  in  and  i s s u e s which w i l l  of  gaming  order  major  to  trends,  subsequently  be  analyzed. 1970-74; The The  Quiet  B.C.  exercising  Period  government  waited  almost  i t s a u t h o r i t y under what was  a  year  then  S . 1 7 9 A  before of  the  C r i m i n a l C o d e t o l e g a l i z e p u b l i c gaming i n the p r o v i n c e . April, 179A  1970,  o f the  was  only  wanted t o  agricultural  Attorney and was  were enacted  in  conduct l o t t e r y  fairs  General was  licensing charitable  or  task.  1974:  and  as  or  the  section province  religious gambling  Accordingly,  the  licensing authority  v e s t e d w i t h a d i s c r e t i o n a r y power t o i s s u e l i c e n c e s .  The  regulations  l i c e n s i n g system, which was 1971  to  schemes, and  exhibitions.  designated  A s m a l l L i c e n s i n g Branch was this  "pursuant  C r i m i n a l Code".(17) At t h i s p o i n t , the  interested  groups who at  regulations  c r e a t e d w i t h i n the m i n i s t r y f o r themselves s e t  a  rudimentary  r e f i n e d on matters o f d e t a i l  1973.(18)  P r o v i n c i a l L o t t e r i e s and L e g i s l a t i o n  17 B.C.Reg. 108/70. 18 B.C.Reg. 4/71;  up  B.C.Reg. 17/73.  in  In  200  In May Alberta, Canada  1974, B.C. j o i n e d w i t h  Saskatchewan Lottery  and Manitoba,  Foundation  to  l o t t e r i e s i n those p r o v i n c e s . corporate  structure  responsible  i t s western  with  to  conduct  form  t h e Western  and  manage  policy.(19)  from  each  Each  province  province  r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e marketing o f p r o v i n c i a l l o t t e r i e s its  borders,  and i n B.C., t h i s  responsibility  fell  L o t t e r y Branch c r e a t e d by t h e newly enacted L o t t e r y The under  creation  the  terms  unspecified, his  was g i v e n  ministry  administering was d u l y  of the Lottery of  a  the  Act.  was  within t o the  Act.(20)  Branch was n o t mandatory "The  minister",  who  was  the d i s c r e t i o n t o " e s t a b l i s h within  branch  of  the  public  service  t h i s A c t and t h e r e g u l a t i o n s " . ( 2 1 )  created  true  The Foundation was s e t up as a  two d i r e c t o r s  f o r corporate  neighbours,  to carry  out d u a l  functions.  for  The Branch I t s primary  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y was t h e conduct and management o f p r o v i n c i a l lotteries:  essentially  distribution  and i n v e n t o r y  control.  19 I t i s c u r r e n t l y known as t h e Western Canada L o t t e r y C o r p o r a t i o n , a n d t h e Yukon and Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s have a s s o c i a t e membership. The O n t a r i o L o t t e r y C o r p o r a t i o n , L o t o Quebec and t h e A t l a n t i c L o t t e r y C o r p o r a t i o n perform s i m i l a r f u n c t i o n s i n t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e r e g i o n s . The I n t e r p r o v i n c i a l L o t t e r y C o r p o r a t i o n c o n t r o l s nation-wide t r u e l o t t e r i e s . 20 S.B.C. 1974, C.51; R.S.B.C. 1979, C.249. 21 I b i d , s.4. Regarding r e g u l a t i o n s , t h e A c t s p e c i f i e s t h a t the L i e u t e n a n t Governor i n C o u n c i l may make r e g u l a t i o n s " r e s p e c t i n g t h e conduct and o p e r a t i o n o f l o t t e r i e s by t h e P r o v i n c e " and " p r e s c r i b i n g terms, c o n d i t i o n s and f e e s r e s p e c t i n g l i c e n c e s r e q u i r e d under t h e r e g u l a t i o n s " ( s . 9 ) .  201  Of l e s s importance was i t s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e r e g u l a t i o n and  l i c e n s i n g o f other l o t t e r y schemes w i t h i n t h e p r o v i n c e . The  L o t t e r y  administrative  A c t also  body,  the  provided  Lotteries  f o r the creation Advisory  Committee  charged w i t h a d v i s i n g and a s s i s t i n g t h e m i n i s t e r the  administration  respecting  of the Act, regulations,  t h e conduct  of l o t t e r i e s "  of  respecting  " o r any matter  (s.3).  This  Committee  has y e t t o be c r e a t e d . Finally,  the A c t created  a Lottery  Fund,  a  f i n a n c i a l e n t i t y w i t h i n t h e P r o v i n c i a l Treasury, all  proceeds  were  from t h e conduct  t o be p a i d  (s.6).  Fund were r e s t r i c t e d or  f o r preserving  but  and o p e r a t i o n s  Initially,  to "cultural  the c u l t u r a l  separate  i n t o which  of l o t t e r i e s  disbursements  from t h e  o r r e c r e a t i o n a l purposes  heritage  of the  Province",  s . 7 ( b ) o f t h e L o t t e r y A c t was subsequently  amended t o  a l l o w money t o be p a i d out " f o r any other purpose c o n s i s t e n t with  the  objects  Foundation".(22)  of  the  (Subsequently,  Western British  Canada  Lottery  Columbia  withdrew  from t h e Foundation i n 1985, and t h e p r o v i s i o n now disbursements " f o r any other  purpose t h e m i n i s t e r  permits  considers  t o be i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t " ) . ( 2 3 ) 22 S.B.C. 1977, C.76, S.21. 23 S.B.C. 1985, c.50, s.12, e f f e c t i v e 7/7/87 (B.C.Reg. 194/87). Thus, f o r example, i t was announced i n t h e f a l l o f 1988 t h a t t h e p r o v i n c e would use $162 m i l l i o n i n l o t t e r y funds t o c r e a t e a r e g i o n a l and m u n i c i p a l renewal scheme: "Regions H i t J a c k p o t " P r o v i n c i a l Report ( F a l l , 1988).  202  The  final  development of 1974  responsibility the  for provincial  Attorney  General  to  was  lotteries  and  Minister  of  the  S e c r e t a r y and  Government S e r v i c e s . ( 2 4 )  reallocation  of  although  i t may  the t r a n s f e r  ministerial  The  licensing the  the from  Provincial  reason  responsibility  have been designed  of  for  this  is  unclear,  t o remove t r u e  lotteries  from the p e r c e i v e d c o n n o t a t i o n s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the M i n i s t r y o f the A t t o r n e y Certainly, the  more  whereas  General  and  i t s law  enforcement f u n c t i o n s .  t r u e l o t t e r i e s have remained under the a e g i s n e u t r a l and  the  bureaucratic  regulation  of  Provincial  other  lottery  t r a n s f e r r e d back t o the A t t o r n e y General  in  of  Secretariat, schemes  was  1986.  1975-85: Growth i n Gaming During t h i s p e r i o d t h e r e were r e l a t i v e l y few changes i n the same  regulatory time  s t r u c t u r e of  there  activities province  within  was the  extended  allowing  the  charity-run  roulette  t o be  and  commercial  of  an  gaming  control,  exponential  province. range  For of  casinos,  s e t up.(25) The bingo  growth  permitted  expansion  24 B.C.Reg.436/74. 25 B.C.Reg.265/78.  at  of  providing  the  gambling 1978,  gambling  blackjack  c h a r i t a b l e groups gained momentum d u r i n g the the 1980s.  in  example,in  offering  halls  while  these  by and  casinos  services first  the  half  to of  203  Ironically,  the  gaming c o n t r o l machinery was  d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d . T h i s was  due  i n p a r t t o the d i v o r c i n g of  the management o f t r u e l o t t e r i e s 1982.  It  became  the  sole  Richmond.  adversely  The  reduced  a f f e c t e d by  implemented  in  1983,  from the  L o t t e r y Branch i n  responsibility  Canada L o t t e r y Foundation, w i t h in  downsized  of  the  Western  i t s p r o v i n c i a l headquarters  Lottery  Branch,  which  the  government's p o l i c y o f  was  left  with  the  was  also  restraint,  responsibility  l i c e n s i n g gaming f o r c h a r i t a b l e purposes and  at  for  agricultural  fairs. 1985-86:The Fork i n the Road As  was  Columbia  previously  withdrew  Foundation, under the  and  from  the  the  B.C.  April  Western  Lottery  1985,  Canada  Corporation  Lottery  was  formed  and  manage  lottery  schemes on b e h a l f o f the government", t o c o - o r d i n a t e  lottery  activities  lottery  undertake,  supplies  B.C.  with  and from  the  "to  such  to  were  lotteries  in  to  have  Canada  C.50.  by  conduct  provinces,  other  time"  Corporation  provinces  26 S.B.C. 1985,  other  do  time  Lottery  organize,  Act.(26)  British  is  require  Corporation  in  I t s mandate  develop,  Lottery  mentioned,  things  (s.4) . By and  the  to  its  as  of  the  the  minister  year's  counterparts  exclusive  virtue  provide  an  power  end, in  to  amendment  "to  may the other  conduct to  the  204  C r i m i n a l true  Code.(27)  Stability  was  achieved  relation  to  lotteries. Regarding  be  a  more  concern,  s t a t e - l i c e n c e d gaming, however, t h i s  turbulent  expressed  expansion  of  period.  through  gambling  There  the  was  in  about  the  to  public  the  rapid  province.  The  t o r e p e a l the e x i s t i n g r e g u l a t i o n s  enacted pursuant t o the L o t t e r y A c t and the  was  growing  media,(28)  activities  government's response was  of  in  Criminal Code(29)  and  to  replace  what was them w i t h  then s . 1 9 0 "Policy  D i r e c t i v e s R e s p e c t i n g L i c e n s i n g of L o t t e r y Events i n B r i t i s h Columbia".(30) These instruments were i s s u e d by the of  the  modify  Provincial or  replace  Secretary the  Policy  who  reserved  Directives  at  they supersede a l l other p o l i c y g u i d e l i n e s and To a l l i n t e n t s and were  a  slightly  purposes, however, the  modified,  more  extensive  Minister  the  right  "to  any  time,  and  regulations".  Policy Directives version  of  the  former r e g u l a t i o n s . The  P u b l i c Gaming C o n t r o l  Branch) was  Branch  charged w i t h a d m i n i s t e r i n g  (formerly  the  Lottery  provincial licensing  27 T h e C r i m i n a l C o d e ( L o t t e r i e s ) A m e n d m e n t A c t c. 52. 28 e.g. Bolan, "Small Groups Lose Out t o Lure o f B i g Bingo", Vancouver Sun 3/8/85; M c l n t y r e "Cops Probe Casino O p e r a t i o n s " , The Province 15/12/85 and S a g i , "Casino Gambling a B i g Ante Business", Vancouver Sun 30/12/85. 29 B.C.Reg. 123/86. 30 Order i n C o u n c i l  1093/86.  205  of gaming f o r c h a r i t a b l e purposes and a t a g r i c u l t u r a l Late  in  the  licensing Attorney  year,  was  ministerial  transferred  responsibility  back  to  the  In A p r i l Commission  Ministry  such  of  the  1987,  to  Consolidation  the A t t o r n e y  develop  General appointed  policy  for  gaming  comprehensive r e p o r t on gaming a c t i v i t i e s addition  to  Commission  this  also  then  "terms and  policy-making  assumed the  s.190  of  the  i n the  Criminal  issue  "terms  and  a In  Gaming  l i c e n c e s under  Code and  conditions"  region. the  to  c o n d i t i o n s " f o r those l i c e n c e s . ( 3 2 )  issued  the  to provide  function,  power t o  a Gaming  within  province.(31) I t s f i r s t t a s k i n t h i s regard was  General  for  General.  1987-89; C o n s i d e r a t i o n and  what was  fairs.  The  which  prescribe Attorney  replaced  the  " p o l i c y d i r e c t i v e s " i n the i n t e r i m . Alberta  offers  an  j u n c t u r e . There, i n 1979, Advisory  Committee  f o r c e . A key was  the  Alberta  on  interesting  comparison  at  the government s t r u c k a C i t i z e n s '  Gaming  to  report  to  a  caucus  recommendation i n the Committee's f i n a l  establishment Gaming  of  this  a separate  Commission  31 Order i n C o u n c i l 612/87. 32 Order i n C o u n c i l 579/87.  was  regulatory  established  by  task  report  agency.  The  Order  in  206  C o u n c i l i n 1981.(33) In B.C. t h i s p o l i c y development p r o c e s s was  compressed  Commission advice  and  reversed  at the outset  and  Commission,  with  and  body  "quasi-independent  o f the type regulatory  appointment  the c o n s o l i d a t i o n  l i c e n s i n g functions. a  the  With  agency",(34)  by  of the  Rankin  the  the  of p o l i c y  the c r e a t i o n  described  of  as  a  government  moved the l i c e n s i n g f u n c t i o n out o f the r e g u l a r departmental bureaucracy. The Committee's r e p o r t was i s s u e d i n January, 1988,(35) and  although  not  a l l of  i t s recommendations  have  been  implemented, i t was g e n e r a l l y w e l l r e c e i v e d on a l l s i d e s . I t remains the p r o v i n c i a l l i c e n s i n g body and has s i n c e  issued  revised  Public  terms  and  conditions  for  licensing.  The  Gaming Branch performs support and enforcement f u n c t i o n s . Finally,  i n June  1988,  t h e Commission  and  t h e Gaming  Branch were t r a n s f e r r e d t o the newly c r e a t e d M i n i s t r y o f t h e S o l i c i t o r General f o l l o w i n g government  reorganization.  33 A l b e r t a Order i n C o u n c i l 124/81. See Campbell and Ponting, "The E v o l u t i o n o f Casino Gambling i n A l b e r t a " , (1984) 10 Canadian P u b l i c P o l i c y 142. 34 Rankin, "The Cabinet and the Agencies: Toward A c c o u n t a b i l i t y i n B r i t i s h Columbia", (1985) 19 U.B.C.Law Review 25 a t 33. 35 B.C. Gaming Commission, Report t o t h e A t t o r n e y General bv the Gaming Commission on the S t a t u s o f Gaming i n B r i t i s h Columbia ( V i c t o r i a , 1988).  207  At p r e s e n t , gaming c o n t r o l i n B r i t i s h Columbia has  two  d i s t i n c t aspects:  the r e g u l a t i o n of t r u e l o t t e r i e s through a  provincial  corporation  permitted Lottery key  Crown  l o t t e r y schemes by  Corporation  and  the  s t r u c t u r e s . They do  not,  f o u n d a t i o n s . The a  legislative  and  statutory  mandate and  to  The  tenuous  administrative  has  Their  explicit by  fiscal  connections.  structure  i s , at  remedies  Corporation  and  and  the  The  clearly  similar legal  and  best,  and  It  is  only not  a  of  the  example, i t f e l l  heir  conditions,  the  respective  has  functions  ambiguous.  authority,  political  comparison,  l e g a l l y amorphous. For  status  other  an e x p l i c i t s t a t u t o r y base,  Commission,  examination of s t a t u t o r y legal  are  p o l i c y d i r e c t i v e s , which were f o r m e r l y  legal  of  agency.  Commission  l i c e n s i n g t o o l s c a l l e d terms and  formerly  licensing  however, r e s t on  an  The  the  Gaming  statutory  creation.  Commission are  an  Corporation  accountability. vague  and  which were regulations.  It  is  to  an  licensing function,  roles  of  the  Lottery  the Gaming Commission t h a t t h i s c h a p t e r  now  turns.  Statutory Authority British  t o Regulate Gaming  Columbia's  activities  i n the  province  power.  stems  directly  It  authority i s not from  to an  the  regulate  original federal  e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n over c r i m i n a l law  and  or  gaming inherent  government's  procedure found  208  i n s . 9 1 ( 2 7 ) o f the C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t , 1 8 6 7 . The Chapter  Four  exemptions  laid  legislatures operation has  makes out  would  to  province  in have  of l o t t e r y  effectively  either  clear  that, the  no  not  C r i m i n a l  for  provincial  over  the  C o d e , provincial  jurisdiction  i t s power  wish t o conduct and  Lieutenant  it  to  permit  schemes t h e r e i n p r o h i b i t e d .  delegated  the  were  Parliament  lottery  legislature,(36)  the  schemes  (should  manage them i t s e l f ) ,  or to  the the  Governor i n Council.(37) In s . 2 0 7 o f the C r i m i n a l  C o d e , Parliament  has  outlined  general  exemptions  to  the  p r o h i b i t i o n o f l o t t e r y schemes, l e a v i n g t h e i r a u t h o r i z a t i o n , l i c e n s i n g and The  c o n t r o l t o the  arguments r e g a r d i n g  provinces. the  constitutional validity  t h i s arrangement have a l r e a d y been e x t e n s i v e l y examined, those o b s e r v a t i o n s i t should  be  significance  noted in  constitutional  will that the  statutory  regulatory  and  repeated here.  Nonetheless,  those  arguments have  considerable  of  context.  this  Even  arrangement  in British  authorizing  Columbia and  schemes.  36 C r i m i n a l C o d e , s.207(1)(a). 37 I b i d , s.  of  be  if  were  remain a number of concerns  authority  structure  not  present  validity  confirmed, t h e r e s t i l l the  discussi  207(1)(b)-(f).  to  to  be  regarding  ground  controlling  the  the  lottery  209  Canada  adheres  to  the  principle  of  parliamentary  democracy o r r e s p o n s i b l e government. I t i s a x i o m a t i c t o such a system t h a t r e g u l a t o r y a c t i v i t i e s must be founded authority of the l e g i s l a t u r e . is  important  on t h e  As one commentator notes, i t  t o be aware t h a t such  i n t e r v e n t i o n s cannot  be  based upon some i n h e r e n t power o f t h e c e n t r a l a u t h o r i t y , b u t must be based  upon an e x p l i c i t  essential,  under  government,  t o assure  ministers function  a  legal  parliamentary  provision.(38) I t i s  system  the a c c o u n t a b i l i t y  and t o t h e l e g i s l a t u r e ,  of  of regulators to  whether  i n a crown c o r p o r a t i o n , a board  responsible  the regulators  o r commission, o r  w i t h i n a government department.(39) The touchstone is  called  the  parent  legislation  framework  f o r the  delegated  statutory  mandate.  Rankin  which  authority.  notes  that  i s what  provides There  when  the  must  be  regulatory  s t r u c t u r e s a r e s e t up, s t a t u t o r y g o a l s should be s p e l l e d out in  legislation,  issuing  "a blank  otherwise  the l e g i s l a t u r e  i n effect  cheque t o make p o l i c i e s " . ( 4 0 )  is  The p a r e n t  A c t i s t h e " l e g a l l i n c h p i n " which should p r o v i d e a "coherent  38 Kane, supra f n . 10 a t p.8. 39 Economic C o u n c i l o f Canada, R e s p o n s i b l e R e g u l a t i o n : An I n t e r i m Report (Ottawa: Supply and S e r v i c e s , 1979) p.31. 40 Rankin,  supra f n . 34 a t p. 35.  210  framework"(41) i n which t o accommodate what W i l l i s r e f e r s t o as " c o n f l i c t i n g  desires":(42)  "The a d m i n i s t r a t o r wants enough room i n h i s s t a t u t o r y powers t o be a b l e t o do what i s s e n s i b l e i n c a r r y i n g out p o l i c y ; on the o t h e r hand he a l s o wants, f o r h i s own p r o t e c t i o n , some guidance from t h a t organ of r e s p e c t a b i l i t y , h i s l e g i s l a t u r e , on what he i s supposed t o do w i t h them. The c i t i z e n wants the a d m i n i s t r a t o r t o be a b l e t o do what i s s e n s i b l e when t h a t would be t o h i s , the c i t i z e n ' s advantage but he more o f t e n wants t o be a b l e t o p l a n h i s l i f e without having t o second guess what some [ a d m i n i s t r a t o r ] w i l l do." The  provincial  power t o  regulate  public  gaming  from s.207 of the Code, but t h a t p r o v i s i o n does not the  kind  of  parent  legislation  normally  called  the  existence  "step-parent"  of  provincial  legislation  law  and  otherwise, bodies  i t would  being  or  - to provide  licensing.  result  politically  in  For  the  a  impliedly  the  be  immediate such as  situation  provincial  accountable  in  - what might  s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y f o r the r e g u l a t o r y a c t i v i t i e s government monopoly  resemble  encountered  d e l e g a t i o n o f l e g i s l a t i v e power. I t e x p r e s s l y envisages  comes  to  a be  gaming  control  t o Parliament,  through  the M i n i s t e r of J u s t i c e , i f a t a l l . Initially, lottery statutory  however,  regulations, authority  British  relied found  solely  Columbia, on  i n what was  the then  in very S.179A  enacting general of  the  41 Law Reform Commission of Canada, Report #26: Independent A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Agencies (Ottawa: L.R.C.C..1985) p. 16. 42 W i l l i s , The McRuer Report: Lawyers' V a l u e s and C i v i l S e r v a n t s ' Values", (1986) 18 U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto Law J o u r n a l 351 a t 357.  211  Criminal  Code:  designate  t h e power o f t h e L i e u t e n a n t  t o issue  conditions  licences  t o permit  which  gambling  may  Governor  contain  or a  terms and  f o r c e r t a i n purposes.  These  r e g u l a t i o n s imposed l i c e n s i n g f e e s . The s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h i s i s noted by Jones and de V i l l a r s commenting on t h e c r i t e r i a employed  by  scrutinizes objects  t h e Parliamentary  Standing  Committee  f e d e r a l subordinate l e g i s l a t i o n .  i f a  regulation  contains  That  provisions  which  Committee requiring  payment t o be made t o t h e Crown o r t o any other a u t h o r i t y i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f any l i c e n c e o r s e r v i c e t o be rendered, " o r p r e s c r i b e s t h e amount o f any such charge o r payment without express a u t h o r i t y t o t h a t e f f e c t having been p r o v i d e d enabling this  statute".(43)  i n the  The B.C. r e g u l a t i o n s were l a c k i n g i n  regard. In  1974, t h e p r o v i n c e  acted  t o put t h e r e g u l a t i o n o f  p u b l i c gaming on a more secure s t a t u t o r y  footing, with the  enactment o f t h e L o t t e r y A c t . I t p r o v i d e d  a l e g i s l a t i v e base  for  the Lottery  Branch,  Committee and delegated  the Lottery  Fund and t h e A d v i s o r y  t o the Lieutenant  Governor t h e power  t o make l o t t e r y r e g u l a t i o n s . The p o l i c y o b j e c t i v e s o f these creations  were  left  undefined.  In  this  regard,  Rankin  states,(44) "To t h e extent t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t i v e g o a l s have been only skeletally defined i n statutes, i t becomes 43 Jones and de V i l l a r s , P r i n c i p l e s o f A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law (Toronto: C a r s w e l l , 1985) p. 81. 44 Rankin, supra fn.34 a t p. 36.  2 1 2 d a l t t r T h e  i g e o h e  f f i c u l t e n c i e s g i s l a t u p r o v i d a t " b r o g u l a t o r  L o t t e r y  l e a s t  A c t ' s  a n c h o r  l e g i s l a t i o n . b a s i s  o f  a  L o t t e r y  F o r  o v e r  a  c o n t r o l 1 9 8 5 ,  i n  t h e  d i f f e r e n t  A c t  s t a t u t o r y  o f  p u b l i c i t  o n s o f r e g u l a t o d e l e g a t e d b y t n c e o f t h e f a i l u t a t u t o r y p o l i c y t i c i a n o u t o f t  g a m i n g  w a s  r e g u l a t i o n a n d  a  c i s i l s e q u e o f s p o l i  t o  b e  i t  i n  d i d  r y h e r e i s h e a t  p r o v i n c i a l  t h e  s t a t u t o r y  B . C .  w a s  w i t h  d e g o a o n s s a  n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g ,  d e c a d e ,  C o r p o r a t i o n  C o r p o r a t i o n e x p l i c i t  r e g u l a t i o n  i n  o n  i n a d e q u a c i e s  t h e  g a m i n g  T h e n , p l a c e d  t o c r i t i c i z e t h e f o r n o t m e e t i n g r e . T h e i n e v i t a b l e c e d e f i n i t e s t a t e m e n t a d d i s c r e t i o n m a k e s " . "  m o r e  o f  t r u e  s e c u r e  c r e a t e d d e t a i l e d  l o t t e r i e s  f o o t i n g . u n d e r  l e g a l  T h e  t h e  w a s B . C .  L o t t e r y  s t r u c t u r e  a n d  a n  m a n d a t e :  " s . 4T h e o b j e c t s o f t h e c o r p o r a t i o n a r e ( a ) t o d e v e l o p , u n d e r t a k e , o r g a n i z e , c o n d u c t a n d m a n a g e l o t t e r y s c h e m e s o n b e h a l f o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t . ( b ) w h e r e a u t h o r i z e d b y t h e m i n i s t e r , t o e n t e r i n t o a g r e e m e n t s t o d e v e l o p , u n d e r t a k e , o r g a n i z e , c o n d u c t a n d m a n a g e l o t t e r y s c h e m e s o n b e h a l f o f o r i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h e g o v e r n m e n t o f C a n a d a o r t h e g o v e r n m e n t o f a n o t h e r p r o v i n c e , o r a n a g e n t o f e i t h e r o f t h e m , ( c ) w h e r e a u t h o r i z e d b y t h e m i n i s t e r , t o e n t e r i n t o t h e b u s i n e s s o f s u p p l y i n g a n y p e r s o n w i t h c o m p u t e r s o f t w e a r , t i c k e t s o r a n y o t h e r t e c h n o l o g y , e q u i p m e n t o r s u p p l i e s r e l a t e d t o t h e c o n d u c t o f l o t t e r i e s i n o r o u t o f t h e P r o v i n c e , o r a n y o t h e r b u s i n e s s r e l a t e d t o t h e c o n d u c t o f l o t t e r i e s , a n d ( d ) t o d o s u c h o t h e r t h i n g s a s t h e m i n i s t e r m a y r e q u i r e f r o m t i m e t o t i m e . " T h e  C o r p o r a t i o n  t h e  m i n i s t e r  a s  p r a c t i c a b l e (s.7(4)).  w h o  i s  r e q u i r e d  m u s t  p r e s e n t  t o  s u b m i t i t  t o  A l s o ,  t h e t h e  a n  a n n u a l  r e p o r t  L e g i s l a t u r e  t o  a s  s o o n  d i r e c t o r s o f  t h e  213  Corporation,  i n s.10 o f t h e A c t , a r e g i v e n t h e power t o make  regulations. The  use o f Crown c o r p o r a t i o n s  as instruments o f p u b l i c  p o l i c y i s common a t both l e v e l s o f government i n Canada and has  been  t h e instrument  management  of  true  of choice  lotteries.  l i t e r a t u r e on Crown c o r p o r a t i o n s s y s t e m a t i c a l l y here.(45) speaking,  they  are  f o r t h e conduct  There  is  which w i l l  an  alternative  to  extensive  n o t be reviewed  S u f f i c e i t t o say t h a t ,  an  and  generally  either  public  r e g u l a t i o n o f p r i v a t e s e c t o r a c t i v i t y o r d i r e c t departmental conduct  of  an  permissible  activity.(46)  under  The  the C r i m i n a l  former  Code,  option  which  was n o t  reduced  the  choice a v a i l a b l e . Langford likely  observes  t o be used  managerial  corporation  i s more  i n s i t u a t i o n s where i t i s f e l t  that the  techniques  with the corporate  that  and  a  Crown  structures  commonly  identified  form w i l l be more l i k e l y t o r e s u l t i n t h e  e f f e c t i v e and e f f i c i e n t performance o f a s p e c i f i c t a s k will  t h e use o f a t r a d i t i o n a l ,  bureaucracy  with  i t s rigidity,  than  h i e r a r c h i c a l departmental routine  and  political  45 e.g. Canada. P r i v y C o u n c i l O f f i c e , Crown C o r p o r a t i o n s : D i r e c t i o n . C o n t r o l . A c c o u n t a b i l i t y , (Ottawa: Supply and S e r v i c e s , 1977) and Prichard', (ed.) Crown C o r p o r a t i o n s i n Canada: The C a l c u l u s o f Instrument Choice. (Toronto: Butterworths, 1983). 46 T r e b i l c o c k and P r i c h a r d , "Crown C o r p o r a t i o n s : The C a l c u l u s o f Instrument Choice", i n P r i c h a r d (ed.), s u p r a f n . 45, pp.1-97 a t 7.  214  influence.(47) independence activities. form  They to  In  Thus, as  the  established to management  relation  provides  government  are  some  without  to  true  appearance unduly  T r e b i l c o c k and  of  give  a  of  types  of  certain  lotteries, of  measure  the  distance  attenuating  corporate  from  government  direct  control.  P r i c h a r d note,(48) by e s t a b l i s h i n g  p u b l i c ownership through the c o r p o r a t e  form,  "the government i s a b l e t o make a symbolic statement t h a t i t i s denying the f o r c e s of the market p l a c e and i s determined t o m a i n t a i n c o n t r o l over the price, supply and channels of d i s t r i b u t i o n o f the product i n o r d e r t o encourage moderation i n i t s consumption. 11  When the did  not  B . C .  L o t t e r y C o r p o r a t i o n A c t was  f o r m a l l y r e p e a l the L o t t e r y A c t . With the  pass  effective  removal o f t r u e l o t t e r i e s from i t s a e g i s , however, i t s scope was  much  enacted o f the  reduced.  1986,  C r i m i n a l C o d e were r e p e a l e d i s s u e d by  Government  initial  i n June  pursuant t o the L o t t e r y A c t and  Directives" and  Further,  Services  arrangement  l i c e n s i n g being  the M i n i s t e r o f  set  pursuant up  in  have  been  replaced  was  by  to  "Policy  Secretary  s . 1 9 0 . The  restored,  although  "Terms  then s . 1 9 0  r e p l a c e d by  reference to a  s t a t u t o r y base. T h i s remains i n e f f e c t , Directives  what was  Provincial  simply  1970  conducted without  and  a l l regulations  and  with  provincial the P o l i c y Conditions"  47 Langford, "Crown C o r p o r a t i o n s as Instruments o f P o l i c y " i n Doern and Aucoin (eds.), P u b l i c P o l i c y i n Canada (Toronto: Macmillan, 1979) pp.239-274 a t 239. 48 T r e b i l c o c k and P r i c h a r d , s u p r a fn.45 a t  p.73.  215  issued  by  the  B.C.  become v i r t u a l l y This  Gaming Commission.  to  Lottery Act  has  irrelevant.  development  amendment  The  might  s.207(2)  of  be  partially  the  Code  explained  enacted  in  by  an  January,  1986.(49) P r i o r t o t h a t date, the s u b s e c t i o n p r o v i d e d t h a t a licence  issued  by  ot  under  the  Lieutenant  a u t h o r i t y might c o n t a i n "such terms and  Governor's  conditions  relating  t o the management and conduct o f the l o t t e r y scheme t o which the  licence  relates"  p r e s c r i b e . Subsection  as  the  Lieutenant  207(2) now  Governor  may  reads:  "Subject t o t h i s Act, a l i c e n c e i s s u e d by o r under the a u t h o r i t y o f the L i e u t e n a n t Governor i n C o u n c i l of a p r o v i n c e .... may c o n t a i n such terms and c o n d i t i o n s r e l a t i n g t o the conduct, management and o p e r a t i o n o f o r participation i n the lottery scheme t o which the l i c e n c e r e l a t e s as the L i e u t e n a n t Governor i n C o u n c i l of that province, the person o r a u t h o r i t y i n the province designated by the Lieutenant Governor i n C o u n c i l t h e r e o f or any law enacted by the l e g i s l a t u r e of that province may prescribe." [New provisions underlined] A  strict  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of  the  would appear t o make p r o v i n c i a l  wording  of  this  subsection  legislation optional. It i s  argued, however, t h a t such a c o n s t r u c t i o n i s t e n a b l e o n l y i f [l]the  term  "law"  found  i n the  sense o f primary l e g i s l a t i o n , [2]that  terms  subordinate  and  i s used  in  the  and  conditions  l e g i s l a t i o n enacted  found i n parent  subsection  would  otherwise  be  found  in  under a d e l e g a t i o n o f power  legislation.  49 S.C.1985, c.52. T h i s i s the amendment which d i v e s t e d the f e d e r a l government of any power t o conduct and manage l o t t e r y schemes.  216  To  find  on  otherwise  behalf  of  provincial  law.  would, i n e f f e c t ,  the  province  allow  without  l i c e n s i n g by  any  reference  Nonetheless, i t seems t h a t B r i t i s h  has chosen t o view s.207(2) as making p r o v i n c i a l r e g a r d i n g the  and  l i c e n s i n g of l o t t e r y schemes as  to  Columbia  legislation  optional.(50)  Statutory authority i s d i s t i n c t l y lacking.  L i c e n s i n g Without Where other  Law  public  than by  gaming  the p r o v i n c e  is  to  be  itself,  conducted the  and  managed  C r i m i n a l Code makes  p r o v i n c i a l l i c e n s i n g mandatory.* I t i s h a r d l y s u p r i s i n g t h a t this  is  the  form  observer  notes  licensing  i s the  of  that,  regulation after  *the  which  criminal  t o o l most f r e q u e n t l y used by  enforcing s o c i a l policy.(52) Williams permits  a  was  c l o s e r s u r v e i l l a n c e of  chosen. law the  argues t h a t  conduct  than  One  method', state i n licensing  i s possible  under the o r d i n a r y c r i m i n a l law.(53) I t c e r t a i n l y a l l o w s  an  50 I t should be noted t h a t B.C. i s not alone i n t h i s r e g a r d . A l b e r t a ' s r e g u l a t o r y s t r u c t u r e , upon which B.C.'s i s l a r g e l y modelled, i s v i r t u a l l y i d e n t i c a l . O n t a r i o a l s o s u b s c r i b e s t o a s i m i l a r arrangement. * In the b r i e f review of the l i t e r a t u r e on l i c e n s i n g which f o l l o w s , c e r t a i n words and phrases w i l l be u n d e r l i n e d i n o r d e r t o i n d i c a t e the assumption o f an e x p l i c i t l i c e n s i n g law found t h e r e i n . 52 W i l l i s ,  supra fn.42 a t 354-55.  53 W i l l i a m s , " C o n t r o l By L i c e n s i n g " , [1967] Current Problems 81.  Legal  217  administrative presence  of  assessment,  legal  in  requirements  advance,  regarding  o r t h e absence  of  the legal  o b j e c t i o n s . ( 5 4 ) The t h r u s t i s e s s e n t i a l l y p r e v e n t a t i v e . In any event,  a l i c e n c e g r a n t s a p e r m i s s i o n t o do what  is  otherwise  illegal,(55)  and i s one o f t h e o l d e s t d e v i c e s  of  administrative control.(56) According  can be used f o r a v a r i e t y o f purposes, type  found  i n t h e context  t o Freund,(57) i t  but l i c e n s i n g o f t h e  of provincial  gaming  control  represents "the administrative lifting of a legislative prohibition. The primary legislative thought in l i c e n s i n g i s not p r o h i b i t i o n but r e g u l a t i o n , t o be made e f f e c t i v e by t h e formal g e n e r a l d e n i a l o f a r i g h t which is then made individually available by an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a c t o f a p p r o v a l , c e r t i f i c a t i o n , consent or permit." It  i s also  licensing" had  an  example  o f what  Friedman  calls  "hostile  i n t h a t i t i s imposed on t h e l i c e n s e d group who  no p a r t i c i p a t i o n  i n the d r a f t i n g  and enactment  of the  l i c e n s i n g laws and have no say i n t h e l i c e n s i n g p r o c e s s . He compares i t t o " f r i e n d l y l i c e n s i n g " which i s u s u a l l y induced by  a  trade  or  professional  association  to  enforce  54 Freund, " L i c e n s i n g " i n E n c y c l o p a e d i a o f t h e S o c i a l S c i e n c e s Vol.9 (New York: Macmillan, 1937) pp.447-451 a t 447. 55 Law Reform Commission o f Canada, Working Paper # 51: P o l i c y Implementation.Compliance and A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law. " (Ottawa: L.R.C.C.,1986) p.67. 56 Foulkes, A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law (6th ed.) (London: Butterworths, 1986) p.93. 57 Freund, supra  fn.54.  218  professional  norms  and  restrict  access  to  the  licensed  occupations.(58) Having  received  the  authorization  l i c e n c e l o t t e r y schemes, a p r o v i n c e , it  must  determine  several  basic  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e lawyer,(59) these - who  i s t o be the l i c e n s i n g  from  Parliament  to  i n d e c i d i n g t o a c t upon  issues.  According  to  one  are  authority;  - what w i l l the a p p l i c a n t have t o show t o get a l i c e n c e ; - i s i t t o be s u b j e c t t o c o n d i t i o n s , and - i s t h e r e t o be an appeal a g a i n s t c o n d i t i o n s . I f so, t o whom and In any  o f what k i n d ;  a r e f u s a l or against  on what grounds?  system of r e s p o n s i b l e government, i t goes almost  without s a y i n g t h a t the answers t o these q u e s t i o n s found i n the law.  I t should,  should  i n S t r e e t ' s words "be  a  matter t o f i n d out what l i c e n s i n g powers e x i s t . " ( 6 0 ) Reform  Commission  licensee  is  standards"  the  of  governed and  l i c e n c e " and,  by  Canada by  has  stated  "generally  "specific  that  applicable  conditions  be  simple The  Law  normally,  a  legislated  included  in  p r o v i d i n g the l i c e n s e e complies w i t h the  the legal  58 Friedman, "Freedom o f C o n t r a c t and O c c u p a t i o n a l L i c e n s i n g 1890-1910 e t c . " , (1965) 53 C a l i f o r n i a Law Review 487 a t 495496. 59 Foulkes,  s u p r a fn.56 a t  94.  60 S t r e e t , J u s t i c e i n the Welfare S t a t e Stevens and Sons, 1975) p.82.  (2nd ed.)  (London:  219  requirements  s/he  i s  free  t o  pursue  the  relevant  activity.(61) The  Criminal  enactment actual they  o f Canada  b u t i t provides  lottery  can find  religious  little  scheme l i c e n s e e s . out that  they  organization  charitable or  Code  of  e x h i b i t i o n o r an operator  provincial Until British  level  1986, l o t t e r y  were  were  and thus,  general  Canada.  In their  fair  come  place  from t h e  i n t h e province  pursuant at least,  t o the were  licensees.  by p o l i c y  recent,  further  accessible t o  Those  regulations  neither  o f which  The l e g a l s t a t u s o f  consideration.  i s becoming  increasingly  law treatise,  61  Law R e f o r m C o m m i s s i o n o f Canada, s u p r a  62  R.S.B.C. 1979,  C.361.  Regulation  d i r e c t i v e i s a phenomenon  administrative  of  d i r e c t i v e s , which i n  i n t h e B.C. G a z e t t e .  ministerial policy fairly  regulations  including  instruments deserves  although  of a  o r someone who  must  by terms and c o n d i t i o n s ,  have been p u b l i s h e d  A  a board  f o ra  scheme a t a p u b l i c  information  gazetted  and replaced  t u r n were r e p l a c e d  these  statute,  a charitable or  o f a concession,  i n theory  public,  repealed  public  o f government.  Columbia  Act,(62) the  Any f u r t h e r  federal  use t h e proceeds  o r purpose;  lottery  a  t o p o t e n t i a l and  From t h a t  must  o r r e l i g i o u s object  amusement.  guidance  must be e i t h e r  which  wants t o r u n a s m a l l - s c a l e  i s , o f course,  which,  common i n  Dussault and  fn.55 a t 41.  220  Borgeat  describe  regulating  the d i r e c t i v e  the a c t i v i t y  as  of public  a  governmental  servants.  norm  I t i s rarely  based on an express s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n . More commonly, source i s i n t h e g e n e r a l regulation, directed  powers o f t h e government. U n l i k e a  the d i r e c t i v e i s i m p l i c i t  mainly  to  its  the  internal  i n i t s origin organization  and i s of the  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and i t s p u b l i c servants.(63) I n s h o r t ,  it is  "a r u l e o f conduct o f an i n t e r n a l nature made by an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a u t h o r i t y pursuant t o a g e n e r a l power o f c o n t r o l , i n order t o s t r u c t u r e t h e a c t i o n o f one's subordinates, and f o r which f a i l u r e t o obey i s s u b j e c t t o an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and n o n - j u d i c i a l s a n c t i o n . " ( 6 4 ) The  ministerial  policy  directives  issued  i n 1986  r e s p e c t i n g t h e l i c e n s i n g o f l o t t e r y events i n B.C. would n o t appear  to  primarily  f i t this o f an  definition.  internal  Firstly,  they  being  directed  nature,  l i c e n s e e as much as t h e l i c e n s i n g a u t h o r i t y . province lottery  does n o t possess schemes.  a general  Finally,  although  sanctions without  i t may  also  f o r the licensee. a  licence,  or  have  failure  Operating  i n violation  t h e exemptions p r o v i d e d  criminal  offence  63 Dussault  under  a of  over  action f o r the in  lottery  criminal scheme  t h e terms  and  o u t s i d e t h e scope  i n s.207 o f t h e Code and i s a s.207(3)  subject  and Borgeat, supra fn.4 a t 17.  64 I b i d a t 329.  Secondly, t h e  t o follow the  resulted  c o n d i t i o n s o f a l i c e n c e takes t h e o p e r a t o r of  t o the  power o f c o n t r o l  d i r e c t i v e s may have r e s u l t e d i n d i s c i p l i n a r y administrator,  were n o t  to  a  maximum  221  punishment o f two y e a r s ' imprisonment.(65) Conversely, policy  directives  justiciable. on t h i r d  are  They do  internally  not  binding,  confer l e g a l l y  p a r t i e s even though such  they  are  enforceable  p a r t i e s may  be  while not  rights  adversely  a f f e c t e d by non-compliance.(66) While o f f e r e d by of  it  recognizes  Dussault  Canada,  in  and  its  the  definition  Borgeat,  report  on  the  Law  of  directives  Reform  independent  Commission  administrative  agencies, c o n c e n t r a t e s on a much narrower c o n c e p t i o n o f  the  phenomenon.  are  According  to  the  Commission,  directives  i n s t r u c t i o n s s p e c i f i c a l l y a u t h o r i z e d by s t a t u t e t o be i s s u e d by  Cabinet  to bind  o r a m i n i s t e r and  an  i s s u e d i n a formal  agency t o the p o l i c y  the  government  instrument intends  to  see f o l l o w e d on a g i v e n q u e s t i o n and should have the form o f regulations. administrative the  character  but  they  were  They  are  nature.(67) of  the  were not  they  of  a  rather  T h i s comes c l o s e r  lottery  specifically  constituted  legislative  as  licensing  regulations.  an  to describing  policy  a u t h o r i z e d by  than  directives, statute, As  nor  Starr  65 T h i s p o t e n t i a l outcome renders the f a i l u r e t o p u b l i s h the p o l i c y d i r e c t i v e s and terms and c o n d i t i o n s i n the Gazette even more q u e s t i o n a b l e . 66 Law Reform Commission o f Canada, supra fn.41 a t p. 24, fn.28. An good example of t h i s are the d i r e c t i v e s i s s u e d by the Commissioner of P e n i t e n t i a r i e s which have been h e l d by the Supreme Court of Canada not t o be l e g a l l y e n f o r c e a b l e by p r i s o n inmates even though they were a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d by the f a i l u r e o f the a u t h o r i t i e s t o f o l l o w the d i r e c t i v e s : Martineau v. The Queen, [1978] 1 S.C.R.118. 67 I b i d a t pp.  23-4  and  26.  222  indicates,(68) clearly  the p r o v i s i o n s o f the l o t t e r y d i r e c t i v e s were  intended  to  be  regulatory  i n nature,  but  were  not  v a l i d l y enacted r e g u l a t i o n s . In any and  event, the p o l i c y d i r e c t i v e s have been  r e p l a c e d by terms and  B.C.  and  conditions  and  there  Furtney  law  are not  i s no et  lottery  regulations or s t a t u t o r y  the  terms and  a  rejected  conditions,  l i c e n c e s , were not  above however, o p e r a t i n g of  Court  they were charged w i t h an  because the  a  licence constitutes  terms  which preceded  and  recent  instruments  the  published.  As  conditions,  them, would  and  appear t o  unknown t o  the  was  or  federal Criminal  v.  respondents'  offence  l o t t e r y without a  In R.  although r e f e r r e d  which, of course, i s an o f f e n c e known t o The  A  the  Supreme Court found t h a t such terms  requirement t h a t they be g a z e t t e d .  al.,(69)  argument t h a t  in  c o n d i t i o n s which are i s s u e d by  Gaming Commission, but which are not g a z e t t e d .  d e c i s i o n of the O n t a r i o  repealed  to  indicated  in  violation  Code  offence,  law. policy directives  come c l o s e s t t o  what  E n g l i s h commentators have termed " q u a s i - l e g i s l a t i o n " . F i r s t adopted by Megarry i n 1944,(70) i t encompasses law-which-isnot-a-law,  e.g.  administrative  arrangements  and  practice  68 S t a r r , "Submission t o Task Force on Gaming on Reserves" i n Indian and Northern A f f a i r s Canada, Gaming on R e s e r v e s : e t c . (Ottawa: I.N.A.C, 1987) p. 9. 69 Unreported d e c i s i o n , Supreme Court of O n t a r i o , 70 Megarry, " A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law Q u a r t e r l y Review 125.  Quasi-Legislation",  13/9/88.  (1944) 60  223  notes.  It. i s  criticized  promulgation (71)  for  i t s haphazard  and f o r t h e l a c k  of legal  mode  controls  of over  it.(72) Ganz  recently  subjected  l e g i s l a t i o n t o rigorous  the  concept  of  a n a l y s i s and concluded  quasi-  that  i n d i r e c t l e g a l e f f e c t . Thus, f o r example, a g r a n t  i t has  o r renewal  o f a l i c e n c e i s made c o n d i t i o n a l upon compliance w i t h legislation are  and c o n d i t i o n s  attached  legal  based  on t h e q u a s i - l e g i s l a t i o n  t o the licence.(73)  situation  in  British  l i c e n s i n g . I t i s achieved  This  by  i s e s s e n t i a l l y the  Columbia  regarding  without recourse  base. Nonetheless, i t has an i n d i r e c t bolstered  the Criminal  Code  quasi-  lottery  t o a formal  legal  l e g a l e f f e c t which i s  offence  of operating  an  of the functions  of  u n a u t h o r i z e d l o t t e r y scheme.  Remedies As  was  administrative behaviour  stated law  above, (74) i s to  or procedural  administrative  one  provide  remedies  irregularities  authority.  Those  for illegal  on t h e p a r t  remedies  are  of the  generally  71 I b i d a t p.128 72 Ganz, Q u a s i - L e q i s l a t i o n : Recent Developments i n Secondary L e g i s l a t i o n (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1987) p.25. 73 I b i d a t p. 16. 74 Supra fn.4 and surrounding t e x t .  224  sought  through  action.(75) the  will  available licensing  review  of  the  administrative  Having s e t out the o r i g i n s , nature and  regulation  section  judicial  of  public  examine  in  the  instances  gaming  through  legal  remedies  of  scope o f  licensing, which  administrative  might  abuse  in  review  t h a t powers can  i s based on  the  fundamental  be v a l i d l y e x e r c i s e d o n l y w i t h i n t h e i r  o f an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n and the  procedural  were a n t i q u a t e d  and  fact  scope,  review  the  varied  character  of  grounds  the  to  judicial  could  be  judicial  Until review  commentator notes t h a t and  the  decisionmaker  review  for  true  legality  i t s merits.(76)  requirements  complex. One  according  not  a l l e g e d meant t h a t , a t common law, for  the  principle  l i m i t s . Consequently, a c o u r t w i l l o n l y examine the  that  be  process.  Judicial  recently,  this  procedure decision  and  the  of  in kind  judicial  issue, of  an otherwise v a l i d  defeated  by  an  the  error  the  defect claim in  the  75 J u d i c i a l review i s d i s t i n c t from any r i g h t of appeal from a d e c i s i o n o f an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e body. One observer notes t h a t t h e r e i s no i n h e r e n t r i g h t o f appeal i n such circumstances; i t i s a s t a t u t o r y r i g h t - K l a s s e n "Appeals from A d m i n i s t r a t i v e T r i b u n a l s " i n C.L.E.S.B.C., A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law (Vancouver: C.L.E.S.B.C., 1988) pp.3.2.01-09 a t 3.2.01. Nonetheless, the B.C. Gaming Commission p r o v i d e s a n o n - s t a t u t o r y r i g h t o f appeal t o the Commission " i n r e s p e c t of an a c t i o n , order or d e c i s i o n of the Gaming Commission or the P u b l i c Gaming Branch, t h e i r members, o f f i c e r s or employees". These "Gaming Commission Appeal P r o c e d u r a l Rules" are s e t out i n C.L.E.S.B.C., A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law p.1.3.23. 76 Tokar, " A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law: C o d i f i c a t i o n o f the Grounds of J u d i c i a l Review", (1984) 14 Manitoba Law J o u r n a l 171 a t 172.  225  choice  o f remedy.(77)  R e v i e w  With  the enactment  P r o c e d u r e  difficulties  A c t  lottery  indicated,  these  in  and  Powers  licensing  scheme  delegated  B.C.  subdelegation  in British  Columbia, as  have  power.  been  During  receptive  the to  1980s,  the  the  use  d i s c r e t i o n a r y decision-making subordinate  having  of  arguments t o a t t a c k a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a c t i o n . The  essence o f such arguments i s , as Bryden i n d i c a t e s , ( 7 9 )  to  procedural  has a key d e f i c i e n c y i n terms o f i t s s t a t u t o r y  underpinning courts  B.C.(78)  J u d i c i a l  have been l a r g e l y e l i m i n a t e d .  J u d i c i a l Review o f Delegated The  of  of the  officials  been p r o v i d e d  a u t h o r i t y has been  without  that  redelegated  appropriate  guidelines  f o r the e x e r c i s e o f t h a t d i s c r e t i o n o r  t h a t the power t o subdelegate  has not been granted  expressly  o r i m p l i e d l y by the r e l e v a n t l e g i s l a t i o n . A c c o r d i n g l y ,  in R e  M i a  B.C.(80)  a n d t h e M e d i c a l  S e r v i c e s  i s s u a n c e and d e n i a l o f b i l l i n g not  to  be  constituting W e s t e r n  C a n a d a  C o m m i s s i o n  numbers  t o d o c t o r s was  authorized  by  the  an  of  jurisdiction.  excess  W i l d e r n e s s  C o m m i t t e e  M e d i c a l  e t  o f  a l . ,  found  S e r v i c e s  Similarly, v .  M i n i s t e r  77 Kaplan, " J u d i c i a l Review Under the J u d i c i a l review Procedure A c t " i n C . L . E . S . B . C . , s u p r a fn.106, pp.3.1.01-15 3.1.05. 78 S.B.C. 1976, C.25; R.S.B.C. 1979, C.209. 79 Bryden, " N o n - T r a d i t i o n a l Decision-making" i n C . L . E . S . B . C . , s u p r a f n . 75 pp.1.2.01-09 a t 1.2.03. 80 (1985) 17 D. L.R.  (4th) 385 ( B . C . S . C ) .  the  in o f at  A c t  226  the  Environment,(81)  sought  a  declaration  ministry wolves  members  official from  was  statute  permits  in  was  gave the  interest  vires  and  a  official  permit  null  the  and  the  authority  by  therefore  which  an  to  B.C.  "a  issue  to  officer  unlawful  hunt  to  made  The issue  by  permits  a  the simply  without  Supreme Court found t h a t t h i s  complete  the  of  void.  authority  regulations  group  power  Governor i n C o u n c i l , but those r e g u l a t i o n s  constitute  criteria  public  decision-making  with  l e g i s l a t i v e guidance. The not  a  accordingly  accordance  transferred  did  the  ultra  aircraft  relevant  Lieutenant  that  of  scheme is  to  subdelegation  of  standards  be  guided"  of  a  and  and  was  discretionary  power. Regarding legislation defining Lieutenant  l o t t e r y l i c e n s i n g , there  establishing  its  powers.  the It  has  Governor i n C o u n c i l  provincial  body  conditions  and  responsible the  actual  B.C.  constituent  Commission  designated  and  by  the  i n an Order i n C o u n c i l as for  issuing  both  l i c e n c e s . There  terms  and  i s , however,  criteria"  by  the  no  which i t i s  guided. A  related  principle recent 81  no  Gaming  been  "complete scheme o f standards and t o be  is  may  argument also  developments  be in  also  based  fruitful. the  (1988) 25 B.C.L.R. (2d)  93  area  In of  on his  the  subdelegation  article  examining  subdelegation,  (B.C.S.C).  Keyes  227  observes t h a t t h e r e a r e numerous cases i n which t h e i s s u e i s not  one o f t h e t r a n s f e r  subdelegate. legislative  Rather,  o f power  the issue  power so t h a t  from  a  delegate  to a  i s the delegation  of a  i t i s exercised  administratively  o r t h a t an a u t h o r i t y has attempted t o use an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e power  t o achieve  through might  something  delegated be  without  that  legislated  body  guidelines,  the courts  t o such a r e g u l a t o r y their  affairs  Canadian T r a n s p o r t conditions order,(83) have  in  B.C.  for lottery  Gaming  licensing  i n the l i c e n s i n g  have imposed what i s , i n  policy  t o enable those who a r e  scheme t o know t h e law and t o  accordingly.  For  Commission was p r o h i b i t e d  a i r carrier  licences  and a p r o v i n c i a l r e n t  improperly  internal  done  f o r example, i t the  results  e f f e c t , a duty t o make law i n order  structure  of  been  established administratively.  In such i n s t a n c e s  subject  have  Thus,  designation  as t h e rule-making  scheme being  should  legislation.(82)  argued  Commission  which  fettered guidelines  subsequently were, promulgated as  from  through  commission  i t s discretion which  example,  should  a  was  by  the  imposing general found t o  considering  have  been,  and  regulations.(84)  82 Keyes, "From D e l e g a t u s t o t h e Duty t o Make Law", (1987) 33 M c G i l l Law J o u r n a l 50 a t 78. 83 N o r t h C o a s t A i r S e r v i c e s L t d . v . C a n a d i a n T r a n s p o r t C o m m i s s i o n , [1968] S.C.R. 940, c i t e d by Keyes, s u p r a fn.82 at p. 81. 84 D a l e C o r p . v . R e n t R e v i e w C o m m i s s i o n , 138 (S.C.A.D.) c i t e d by Keyes, s u p r a fn.82 a t p. 82.  (1983) N.S  228  Keyes  cautions  considered  in  light  C a p i t a l  C i t i e s  t h a t t h e parent use  its  Commission  that of  this the  I n c .  legislation  regulate  to  Supreme  make  law  Court's  must  be  decision  in  v . C . R . T . C . (85)  i n which  i t was  d i d not compel the C.R.T.C. t o  regulation-making could  duty  powers.(86) cable  Instead,  television  on  an  the  a d h o c  b a s i s , l a y i n g down i n f o r m a l " g u i d e l i n e s " f o r t h e e x e r c i s e o f its  licensing  discretion.  Keyes  offers  the  following  assessment:(87) "The d e c i s i o n i n C a p i t a l C i t i e s flows from a reading o f the C.R.T.C.'s twin administrative and l e g i s l a t i v e powers. L a s k i n C.J.C. r e f u s e d t o d i v i d e these powers, but r a t h e r r e c o g n i z e d the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e e x i g e n c i e s t h a t warranted t h e f l e x i b i l i t y o f i s s u i n g i n f o r m a l g u i d e l i n e s o r "quasi-law" t o p r o v i d e d i r e c t i o n for t h e e x e r c i s e o f the C.R.T.C.'s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e powers without b i n d i n g i t s d i s c r e t i o n as r e g u l a t i o n s would have done. The d e c i s i o n suggests t h a t when t h e r e g u l a t i o n o f a p a r t i c u l a r area i s i n i t s i n i t i a l stages, t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s u n d e r l y i n g t h e duty t o make law can be s a t i s f i e d other than by making d e l e g a t e d legislation..." The B.C. and  Gaming  Commission a l s o possesses  broad  legislative  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e powers: the power t o p r e s c r i b e terms and  conditions  for lottery  licensing  and  the  power  to  grant  l i c e n c e s . The r e g u l a t i o n o f p u b l i c gaming i n t h e p r o v i n c e i s similarly  in i t s initial  stages.  Conceivably,  C a p i t a l C i t i e s c o u l d apply t o preserve until  gaming  c o n t r o l had  reached  85 [1978] 2 S.C.R. 141. 86 Keyes, s u p r a fn.82 a t p. 83. 87 I b i d a t 84.  a  level  therefore,  the p r e s e n t of maturity.  structure It  229  should  be noted, however, t h a t the C.R.T.C., u n l i k e the  Gaming Commission, of the and  i s a s t a t u t o r y c r e a t i o n . The  absence of law  operating  viewed  i n l i c e n s i n g and  procedures  as  permitting  provincial  regulation  duty t o make law imposed by the  of  the  too of  combination constitution  l i c e n s i n g body  great  lottery  i n the  a  could  flexibility  schemes.  B.C.  be  in  the  Consequently,  i n e i t h e r o r both o f these areas c o u l d  a be  courts.  J u d i c i a l Review of the E x e r c i s e of D i s c r e t i o n In  order  authorities  to  carry  possess  out  their  discretionary  mandate, most  regulatory  decision-making  powers.  There are no s t r i c t g u i d e l i n e s t o c o n f i n e t h e i r d e c i s i o n s certain  issues.  Administrative  law  requires  d i s c r e t i o n a r y powers must be e x e r c i s e d p r o p e r l y faith,  without  without  taking  conversely, The  an  improper  into  fettering  account  improper  without i g n o r i n g r e l e v a n t  most  significant  organization organization.  Commission  will  constitutes  lottery  the  discretion,  considerations  assess a  o f the whether  charitable  scheme are  and  the  of e l i g i b i l i t y  Such groups are e l i g i b l e  proceeds from the  i . e . i n good  d i s c r e t i o n a r y power o f  l i c e n c e , which i n v o l v e s an e v a l u a t i o n the  that  considerations.  Gaming Commission i s the d e t e r m i n a t i o n  example,  of  on  B.C. for a  applicant.  For  an  applicant-  or  religious  f o r a l i c e n c e i f the used  for a  charitable  230  or r e l i g i o u s o b j e c t not are  or  f u r t h e r d e f i n e these terms and scant  version  of  of  poverty;  l a r g e l y unhelpful(89).  the  Terms and  and  other  the  clearer  Conditions,  advancement  itself  guidelines  In  the  decisions  most  recent  "charitable object  i n r e l a t i v e l y vague terms as the  purposes  Commission has  C r i m i n a l C o d e does  relevant court  and  purpose" i s d e f i n e d  the  purpose(88). The  of  education  beneficial recently  to  meantime, a group which  the  expressed  f o r determining  and/or  a  religion;  desire  eligible  i s denied  relief  community. a  or  The  to  have  groups.(90)  l i c e n c e could  the c o u r t s t o determine whether t h a t d i s c r e t i o n was  In ask  properly  exercised. There  are  very  few  reported  cases  p r o v i n c i a l l i c e n s i n g of l o t t e r y schemes. One E n t e r p r i s e s  L t d .  e t  a l .  v .  M a n i t o b a  L i c e n s i n g  Board,(91)  addresses  discretionary  power.  applicant  which  it  conducted  The  games  of  dealing  o f these, B i n g o  L o t t e r i e s the owned  with  a n d  G a m i n g  curtailing two  bingo  for  premises  of at  charitable  88 C r i m i n a l C o d e , s . 2 0 7 ( 1 ) ( b ) . 89 e.g. In L a R o s e v . P l e u t y , (1971), 5 C.C.C.(2d) 528 (Alta.S.C.) i t was h e l d t o be i n s u f f i c i e n t f o r the money t o be r a i s e d f o r a c h a r i t a b l e purpose; the sponsoring o r g a n i z a t i o n must a l s o be a c h a r i t a b l e o r g a n i z a t i o n . The c o u r t found t h a t a c e r t a i n o r g a n i z a t i o n running a c h a r i t y r a f f l e was not such an o r g a n i z a t i o n , but f a i l e d t o s t a t e the c r i t e r i a which were used t o make t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n . 90 B.C. Gaming Commission, News and Views B.C.G.C) V o l . 1 , # 3, December, 1988. 91  (1983) 2 A d m i n i s t r a t i v e  L.R.  286  (Victoria:  (Man.C.A.)  a  231  organizations  who  were i n p o s s e s s i o n  Manitoba L i c e n s i n g Board. The licensing these  organizations  premises.  proceedings that  the  Court  of  as  a  conduct Appeal  who  Bingo  of a l i c e n c e from  the  Board adopted a p o l i c y o f  not  wanted  seeking  of  Board  found  that  was  Board  the  alia  a  unlawful.  although  second  initiated  inter  licences,  a  d i s c r e t i o n as  i t c o u l d not  to  whether  s i n g l e out  treatment, u n r e l a t e d t o any  The  Manitoba was  a sufficient interest  i t would  the a p p l i c a n t  general  legal  declaration  i s s u e t o be e n t i t l e d t o a remedy. F u r t h e r , had  of  Bingo E n t e r p r i s e s  not an a p p l i c a n t f o r a l i c e n c e i t had i n the  use  Enterprises  result, the  to  while issue  the such  for special  policy:(92)  " I t might not be unlawful f o r the l o t t e r i e s board t o adopt a p o l i c y t o i s s u e fewer l i c e n c e s o r t o r e s t r i c t l i c e n c e s t o a p a r t i c u l a r s i z e of accommodation, o r t o issue licences in a manner which prevents the e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f a gaming house, or t o i s s u e l i c e n c e s i n a manner which w i l l assure t h a t bingos w i l l be h e l d i n areas which w i l l s e r v i c e c e r t a i n geographic p o r t i o n s o f the c i t y o r p r o v i n c e . W i t h i n such g e n e r a l p o l i c y g u i d e l i n e s the p l a i n t i f f would have t o f u n c t i o n i n common w i t h a l l others seeking t o host such events. What the l o t t e r i e s board cannot do i s s i n g l e out Bingo E n t e r p r i s e s f o r s p e c i a l treatment t h a t i s not r e l a t e d t o any such g e n e r a l p o l i c y . " This  decision  discretionary adopt  a  confirms  decision-making  general  account,  although de  done  to  extent  92 I b i d a t p. 296  power,  p o l i c y regarding  into  the  that,  that  the  in it  is  that  consistency  is  J.A.  a  acceptable  to  factors  Smith notes  per O ' S u l l i v a n  exercising  to  this  be  taken  cannot  pursued  at  be the  232  expense  of  the  unacceptable,  merits  however,  of to  individual  have  a  p o l i c y which  a p p l i c a t i o n s of a c e r t a i n type w i l l commentator observes t h a t t h e r e "the  and  regulation".(94) chapter, are  not be  such  denied  authority  "the  To  a  hidden  adequate will  to  a  of  knowledge it  of  that  entertained.  an  One  between  theme  of  interested  how  of  extra-statutory  recurring  r u l e means t h a t  exercise  states  is  p o l i c y i n a matter  enforcement  return  It  i s a dividing line  l e g i t i m a t e p u r s u i t of a general  administration"  cases.(93)  an  this  parties  administrative  decision-making  power  in  a  particular situation. J u d i c i a l Review of an E r r o r o f Law  ex f a c i e  Although the c o u r t s w i l l not review the s u b s t a n t i v e procedural  merits  e r r o r o f law decision. Alberta  In  pull-ticket  of a case, they w i l l step i n t o c o r r e c t  on the face of the the  Gaming  and  recent  case  Commission  et  r e c o r d o f an of  Charity  al.(95)  vending machine sought  a  a  administrative  Vending  Ltd.  manufacturer  declaration  groups t o  operate  v.  of  a  regarding  the d e c i s i o n of the Gaming Commission t h a t t h i s machine a s l o t machine. The  an  was  C r i m i n a l Code does not permit c h a r i t a b l e slot  machines.  Consequently,  93 de Smith, J u d i c i a l review of A d m i n i s t r a t i v e ed.) (London: Stevens, 1980) p. 311-12.  the  Action  Gaming (4th  94 Molot, "The S e l f - C r e a t e d Rule o f P o l i c y and Other Ways of E x e r c i s i n g A d m i n i s t r a t i v e D i s c r e t i o n " , (1972) 18 M c G i l l Law J o u r n a l 310 a t 324. 95  (1988), 43 C.C.C.(3d) 250  ( A l t a . Q.B.).  233  Commission was who  refusing  to issue  licences  sought t o use t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s  t o those groups  machines. In t h e Court o f  Queen's Bench, the a p p l i c a t i o n was granted. I t was h e l d  that  the machine i n q u e s t i o n d i d not c o n s t i t u t e a s l o t machine as defined  i n the  decision void.  Criminal  to prohibit  The  and  misdirected  of  the  was  itself  Commission's  ultra i n law  o f law which was wrong. T h i s  however, has s i n c e been r e v e r s e d determination  that  the use o f them  Commission  i n t o account a p o i n t  Code  the  machine  vires by  taking  decision,  on appeal w i t h the as  a  slot  and  initial  machine  being  restored.(96) J u d i c i a l Review o f Procedure Prior N i c h o l s o n  to  the  v  the  courts  regulatory (encompassing ajudicator)  Court  of  Canada's  . H a l d i m a n d - N o r f o l k  C o m m i s s i o n e r s ( 9 7 ) which  Supreme  t h e r e were c l o s e would  bodies.  The  the r i g h t were  impose  B o a r d limits  of  to a hearing  imposed  only  upon  and  o  in  f P o l i c e  on t h e e x t e n t t o  procedural  rules  decision  obligations  on  natural  justice  t o an  impartial  judicial  or  quasi-  j u d i c i a l b o d i e s . The a d m i n i s t r a t i v e / j u d i c i a l d i s t i n c t i o n was  96 C h a r i t y V e n d i n g v . A l b e r t a G a m i n g C o m m i s s i o n , u n r d e c i s i o n o f the A l b e r t a Court o f Appeal, 21/11/88. The Court a l s o brought i n t o q u e s t i o n the use o f j u d i c i a l review procedure f o r r e v i e w i n g a p o l i c y which was not "a d e c i s i o n d i r e c t l y a f f e c t i n g the a p p l i c a n t f o r r e l i e f " , i . e . the manufacturer was not an a p p l i c a n t f o r a l i c e n c e , but a mere s u p p l i e r t o l i c e n c e e s . T h i s i s s u e was not d e c i d e d as t h e Gaming Commission chose not t o r a i s e i t . 97 [1979] 1 S.C.R. 311.  234  therefore c r u c i a l  in this  licensing  functions  were  hard  no  could  and  regard. be  Reid  and  classified  fast  rules.  David note  e i t h e r way.  It  depended  that There  on  the  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the p a r t i c u l a r l i c e n s i n g scheme.(98) With the  i n t r o d u c t i o n of  a  duty  to  observe p r o c e d u r a l  incumbent upon a d m i n i s t r a t i v e decision-makers i n the  Supreme  Court  rendered  distinction virtually  t o how  this  procedures, the Control  viewpoint  of  the  review.  might a f f e c t  p r o v i n c i a l gaming c o n t r o l  d e c i s i o n s i n Energy Probe v.  Board(99) and  Nicholson,  administrative/judicial  i r r e l e v a n t from the  a v a i l a b i l i t y of j u d i c i a l As  the  fairness  Scarborough Community  v. The Queen(lOO) should be  Atomic Legal  Energy  Services  considered.  Energy Probe concerned a c h a l l e n g e t o a d e c i s i o n o f  the  A.E.C.B. t o renew a l i c e n c e on the b a s i s of an a l l e g a t i o n of pecuniary  b i a s on the p a r t o f a Board member. Reed J . noted  t h a t the p a r t i e s were unanimous t h a t the o f the or  A.E.C.B. was  quasi-judicial.  an  administrative  not  judicial  doctrine  of  fairness  i n Nicholson  a p p l i e d t o the A.E.C.B.'s  licensing  decisions.  He  concluded  that  the  the  one  function  and  Accordingly,  enunciated  licensing  duty  to  act  fairly  98 R e i d and David, A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law and P r a c t i c e (2d (Toronto: Butterworths, 1978) pp.137-8 and 148.  must ed.)  99 [1984] 2 F.C. 227 (F.C.T.D.), a f f i r m e d by F.C.A. [1985] 1 F.C. 563, l e a v e t o appeal t o S.C.C. r e f u s e d . 100  [1985] 2 F.C.  555  (F.C.A.).  235  include other  a  requirement  f o r an  c o n c l u s i o n would  unbiased  undercut  the  decisionmaker.  whole  concept  Any  of  the  requirement o f a duty o f f a i r n e s s . ( 1 0 1 ) M u l l a n adds a caveat t o t h i s d e c i s i o n which might its  applicability  that  the  Federal  functions judicial for  which than  in  reality were  thus  Commissioners  was  dealing more  administrative which  sphere.  are policy  with  judicial and  truly  He  argues  licensing or  quasi-  suggests  that,  administrative,  preferences,  and  the  should be more r e a d i l y t o l e r a t e d . " ( 1 0 2 ) ambiguity  as  to  whether  the  Gaming  must be f r e e o f a l l b i a s .  Scarborough suggests  some  control  were  firmly-held  and perhaps  is  gaming judge  schemes  "predispositions,  There  Court  they  licensing  l i k e may  i n the  limit  fairly  Community L e g a l S e r v i c e s on the o t h e r hand, clearly  that  the  right  to  procedural  f a i r n e s s i n o b t a i n i n g a l i c e n c e t o conduct a l o t t e r y  scheme  does not encompass the r i g h t t o make r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s beyond the i n i t i a l case  S.C.L.S.,  c h a r i t y by had  application, which  o r the r i g h t t o a h e a r i n g . In t h a t  was  the M i n i s t e r  been d e n i e d n a t u r a l  denied  status  as  a  registered  o f N a t i o n a l Revenue argued justice  that i t  or procedural f a i r n e s s  due  t o a f a i l u r e t o r e c e i v e p r i o r n o t i c e o f the case a g a i n s t i t 101 Energy Probe supra fn.99 a t p. 233-34, per Reed J . 102 Mullan, " N a t u r a l J u s t i c e - The C h a l l e n g e s o f N i c h o l s o n , Deference Theory and the C h a r t e r " i n F i n k e l s t e i n and Rogers (eds.) Recent Developments i n A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law (Toronto: C a r s w e l l , 1987) pp.1-52 a t 17.  236  and  the o p p o r t u n i t y  t o meet t h a t case. The  t h i s argument, h o l d i n g  t h a t the  majority  rejected  f u n c t i o n o f the M i n i s t e r i n  d e a l i n g w i t h an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e g i s t r a t i o n as a c h a r i t y i s strictly  administrative.  The  Court  that d i f f e r e n t considerations of such  did  would apply  suggest, t o the  however, revocation  registration:(103)  "While a d e c i s i o n t o revoke a p r e v i o u s l y recognized s p e c i a l s t a t u s on the ground of u n a c c e p t a b l e conduct has the e f f e c t of penal c o n v i c t i o n and the f u n c t i o n of making i t may probably be s a i d t o be q u a s i - j u d i c i a l , i t being s i m i l a r t o t h a t of a judge p r e s i d i n g over a p e n a l t r i b u n a l , a d e c i s i o n t o deny an a p p l i c a n t the r i g h t t o be g i v e n s p e c i a l s t a t u s on the f a c t s and evidence submitted by him, l a c k s the b a s i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f an a d j u d i c a t i o n i n t e r p a r t e s by a c o u r t o f law." Regarding  the  licensing  termination  i s inherent.  number  lottery  of  guarantee for  of  cause,  the  Thus,  renewal  s i g n f i c a n t power and  lottery  Licences  schemes  renewal.  of  of  in  schemes,  however,  are i s s u e d f o r a s p e c i f i e d a  while  given  period,  l i c e n c e s can  licences  is  be  arguably  with  no  revoked the  more  i s t r e a t e d p r o c e d u r a l l y the same as  new  application.  Judicial  review o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  a c t i o n cannot remedy  every l e g a l d e f i c i e n c y i n a l o t t e r y l i c e n s i n g scheme, but i s does p r e s e n t seeking  a  a p o s s i b l e avenue of r e d r e s s not o n l y f o r those  l i c e n c e , but  perhaps a l s o  f o r those  involved  in  103 S c a r b o r o u g h C o m m u n i t y L e g a l S e r v i c e s , s u p r pp.575-76 per Marceau J .  237  the b u s i n e s s  of providing f a c i l i t i e s  and  supplies(104)  and  f o r o t h e r i n t e r e s t groups.(105) I t does, however, r e p r e s e n t a  short-term,  individualized  demands r a d i c a l l e g i s l a t i v e Twenty requiring  years  ago  provincial  development  of  Columbia  least,  at  solution  regulation:  has  not  gaming been  a t t r i b u t a b l e t o the s i n g u l a r i t y gambling.  It sits  a  problem  which  action.  Parliament  provincial  to  created  legalized controls, smooth.  o f the  a  new  area  gambling. within  The  British  In p a r t , t h i s  s t a t u s of  a m b i v a l e n t l y between the  is  legalized  jurisdiction  of  the f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l l e v e l s o f government. Not a l l the growing p a i n s are unique t o gaming c o n t r o l , however. For  example,  J a n i s c h has  noted  that,  r e g u l a t o r y p o l i c y i s not i n s p i r a t i o n a l but  i n general,  incremental:(106)  "In o t h e r words, one does not have inspirational thoughts on r e g u l a t o r y p o l i c y ; one has experience, makes mistakes, tries to make adjustments, has experiments...." Experience  i n B r i t i s h Columbia has  system of c o n t r o l and  the  B.C.  resulted  f o c u s s i n g on the B.C.  Gaming  Commission.  The  i n a bifurcated  Lottery Corporation former  has  been  104 e.g. B i n g o S u p p l i e s L t d . s u p r a fn.91 c . f . C h a r i V e n d i n g s u p r a fn.96. 105 e.g. E n e r g y P r o b e , s u p r a fn.99, and W e s t e r n C a n a W i l d e r n e s s C o m m i t t e e , s u p r a fn.81. 106 Evidence submitted t o the P a r l i a m e n t a r y Committee on R e g u l a t o r y Reform, quoted i n Rankin, s u p r a fn.34 a t p . 41-2.  238  f o r m a l i z e d i n l e g i s l a t i o n ; the l a t t e r operates i n a l e g a l no man's l a n d . Initially, procedures allow  were  damaging  cannot be  itself  recognized  in a  T h i s was  to  and  new  the  structures  particularly  continue  The  B.C.  Gaming  for a legal  Commission  provincial  indefinitely  of parliamentary  and  statute  and  and  flexible  adjustment. Nonetheless,  the need  of  be  allowed  government.  activities  Branch  regulatory  the i n f r a s t r u c t u r e  responsible  was  required  experimentation  situation  the  perhaps,  such  a  without  democracy  Commission  foundation the  to  and has  for a l l  Public  Gaming  regulations.(107)  not one o f the Commission's recommendations which  immediately  enactment  o f such  acted  upon  legislation  by  the  government,  would p r o v i d e  the  but  the  statutory  base which i s c u r r e n t l y l a c k i n g i n the l i c e n s i n g o f l o t t e r y schemes. L i c e n s i n g i n the absence o f law ought t o become an historical  footnote.  107 B.C. Gaming Commission, supra fn.35 a t p.1-3.  239  CONCLUSIONS  The  stated  aim  of  u n d e r s t a n d i n g of how  the  this  thesis  was  to  provide  some  l e g a l s t a t u s o f l o t t e r y schemes i n  Canada has been transformed i n the l a s t twenty y e a r s ,  why  occurred  a  and  what i t s consequences have been. I t was  e n t a i l i n g l e g a l research in  itself  As  a  i s an  conclusion, The  opening  chapters  dimensions  Historically,  before  this,  complexity o f the  there  is  no  for the  single,  demonstrated  of  the  European-style raising  of  historical  for  were  public  taxation  used  latter,  19th  b r i e f hiatus,  century,  the  have been allowed, but  r e s t r i c t i o n s were  time,  but  state  lotteries  lifted were  in  on  also  except  and,  reintroduced  as  at  for  the  a  in  the  quickly,  way  of  w i t h a minimum o f public  fuss  discussion.  It  and was  same  form  very a  a  scale.  i n d i r e c t t a x a t i o n . T h i s r a d i c a l change i n the r u l e s was relatively  for  abolished  a very small  1969  this  projects  and  in  early  in  works  schemes,  and  process.  former were  These  unifying  transformation  lotteries  revenues  introduction  the  r a i s i n g money f o r "good causes". The the  agenda.  but r a t h e r a number o f r e l a t e d c l o s i n g remarks.  political  country  of  task  i n a number o f d i v e r s e areas, which  i n d i c a t o r of the  consequence  it  of done  little silent  transformation. There  were,  philosophically  sound  it  was  reasons  shown, for  the  well-established, removal  of  criminal  240  sanctions  from c e r t a i n gambling games, but  political, if  not  s o c i a l and  more  regardless  economic reasons which were  important of  the  decriminalization accomplished  in  explaining  validity of  not  t h e r e were  of  lottery  within  the  also  equally,  i t s occurrence.  the  reasons  schemes, realms  it  of  for  had  some  And, the  to  ideal  be  legal  system, but w i t h i n the parameters of Canada's c o n s t i t u t i o n a l framework. In a f e d e r a l system l i k e the one  existing in this  country, where the c r i m i n a l law power belongs t o the  central  government, account should have been taken o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l imperatives.  In  this  d r a f t e r s d e v i s e d an of the  criminal  innovative  sanctions  Criminal  l i c e n s e d by  instance,  for  however,  exemption from the  l o t t e r y schemes: a  Code made them l e g a l i f they were operated  or  by  the  federal  between l e g i s l a t i v e Instead  of  and  bodies,  taking simply  they  it  view  to  of  out the  of  regulatory  scheme a d m i n i s t e r e d by the p r o v i n c e s , chosen  adopting  which  the  provinces  as  was  of  the  i s dubious  intervene  alternative  f i t , or  i f they  i n t e r d e l e g a t i o n of powers  schemes  leaving  1985,  In  t h i s arrangement  lottery  saw  or, u n t i l  government.  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o s c r i p t i o n of the  questionable  operation of  a p r o v i n c i a l authority,  altogether  legislative  provision  were conducted  best.  the  a  at  Code to  federal  t h i s highly effectively  r e d i s t r i b u t e d l e g i s l a t i v e a u t h o r i t y without a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment and  ultimately  resulted  in  l o t t e r y schemes b e i n g exchanged i n 1985  federal  control  over  f o r p r o v i n c i a l cash.  241  The  sub  legalized removed  silentio  lottery  from  of  the  The  jurisdiction  conduct have  lack  of  with  which  soon  took  and manage l o t t e r y  an  articulate  the  debate  is  gaming  singular  advantage  control  nature.  of  least  partly  on t h e p a r t o f some of their  the  regulatory  without  scheme  at  policy.  Columbia  base,  which  ability  to  schemes, b u t d i d n o t appear t o  arrangement, has i n B r i t i s h  statutory  by  i n 1985 has had s e r i o u s  r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e i n c o h e r e n t response provinces,  process  schemes were c r e a t e d i n 1969 and t o t a l l y  federal  consequences.  nature  developed  p r o v i d i n g sound  That,  combined  decriminalization  at least,  produced  a  reference t o a  solid  and w e l l - d e v e l o p e d  legal  parameters. The  executive  federal-provincial  agreement  o f 1985,  which l e d t o t h e f e d e r a l government d i v e s t i n g i t s e l f power  over  tradition  legalized  of  failing  lottery t o take  schemes, into  perpetuated  account  an  segment o f Canada's p o p u l a t i o n : i t s a b o r i g i n a l was  shown  country that  that  gambling  s i n c e time  when  games  immemorial  i t was  settled  have  been  of a l l a  important  peoples. I t  played  i n this  by t h e n a t i v e I n d i a n s , b u t by  Europeans,  gambling  was  c r i m i n a l i z e d without regard t o these l o n g - e s t a b l i s h e d I n d i a n traditions.  Just  as n a t i v e i n t e r e s t s were d i s r e g a r d e d when  gambling  was made a c r i m i n a l  ignored  in  the  redistribution  of  o f f e n c e , they  decriminalization control  over  process lottery  were and  similarly i n the  schemes.  The  242  difference willing being  t h i s time, however, i s t h a t I n d i a n bands are  to  acquiesce.  important  in  The  its  gambling own  right,  furthering  Indian  sovereignty.  any  which  will,  other  examination of the In  the  final  which  significant  all  analysis,  support  of  community for  their  legal  in  the  expansion  of  relationship provincial played  out.  a  vehicle  issue  likelihood,  in  administrative between  it  as for  more  force  is  native  governments. The  projects  government  rules  changes  is this  therefore,  c o n f u s i o n . Changing the motion  as  seen  than  a  clear  f a c t , w i t h l o t t e r y schemes a  amounts  transformation  in  It  and  is  re-  l e g a l s t a t u s of l o t t e r y schemes.  twenty y e a r s a f t e r the pastime  controversy  not  status  and  that, popular  generate  coffers, is  the  beset  with  r e g a r d i n g l o t t e r y schemes  constitutional controls Indians final  and and  results  set  sphere,  in  in  fragile  the  the  federal  have s t i l l  the  and to  be  243 BIBLIOGRAPHY  Books and Monographs ed.)  A b e l , A.S. L a s k i n ' s Canadian (Toronto: C a r s w e l l , 1975).  Ashton, J . The H i s t o r y York: Burt F r a n k l i n , 1968).  of  Constitutional  Gambling  Law  (4th  i n England  (New  B a r t l e t t , B.H. Indians and T a x a t i o n (Saskatoon: N a t i v e Law Centre, U n i v e r s i t y o f Saskatchewan, 1980). Becker, H. O u t s i d e r s : S t u d i e s i n t h e Deviance (New York: The Free Press, 1963). Bentham, 1879) .  J.  Theory  of  Legislation  B l a c k s t o n e , W. Commentaries ( P h i l a d e l p h i a : Rees Welsh, 1899).  on  Sociology  (London:  the  Laws  of  Trubner,  of  England  B o l d t , M. and J.A. Long (eds.) The Quest f o r J u s t i c e : Aboriginal Peoples and Aboriginal Rights (Toronto: U n i v e r s i t y o f Toronto Press, 1985). Brown-John, C. L. Canadian R e g u l a t o r y A g e n c i e s : P u i s c u s t o d i e t i p s o s custodes? (Toronto: Butterworths, 1981). C o l d r i d g e , W. and C. Hawks f o r d . (London: Reeves and Turner, 1895). Colvin, E. C a r s w e l l , 1986).  Principles  of  The  Criminal  Law Law  of  Gambling (Toronto:  C o n t i n u i n g L e g a l E d u c a t i o n S o c i e t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia (C.L.E.S.B.C.). A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law (Vancouver: C.L.E.S.B.C., 1988) . Cowie,' I.B. Future Issues o f J u r i s d i c t i o n and Coo r d i n a t i o n Between A b o r i g i n a l and Non A b o r i g i n a l Governments A b o r i g i n a l Peoples and C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Reform. Background paper #13. (Kingston: Institute of Intergovernmental R e l a t i o n s , 1987). D e v l i n , P. The Enforcement U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1959).  o f Morals  (London:  Oxford  Dicey, A.V. I n t r o d u c t i o n t o the Study o f t h e Law o f the C o n s t i t u t i o n (10th ed.) (London: Macmillan, 1961).  244 Doerr, A.D. The Machinery (Toronto: Methuen, 1981).  of  Government  in  Canada  Dombrink, J . Outlaw Businessmen (Unpublished T h e s i s ) ( U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , Berkeley, 1981). Dussault, R. and L. Borgeat A d m i n i s t r a t i v e T r e a t i s e V o l . I (Toronto: C a r s w e l l , 1985). Duster, T. The L e g i s l a t i o n o f M o r a l i t y : Law. Moral Judgement (New York: The Free Press, 1970).  Ph.D.  Law:  Drugs  A and  Evans, J.M. e t a l . A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law: Cases, t e x t s and m a t e r i a l s (Toronto: Emond Montgomery, 1984). F e i n b e r g , J . The Moral L i m i t s o f Volume One: Harm t o Others (New York: P r e s s , 1984) . Finkelstein, Developments in 1987). Fitzmaurice, 1985) .  N. and B. Administrative J.  Quebec  and  Foulkes, D. A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Butterworths, 1986). Friedmann, W. Law (London: Stevens, 1972).  in  a  the Criminal Law Oxford U n i v e r s i t y  Rogers (eds.) Recent Law (Toronto: Carswell, Canada Law  (London:  (6th  Changing  ed.)  Society  Hurst, (London:  (2d  ed.)  Galliher, J . F . and J.R. Cross. Morals Legislation Without M o r a l i t y : The Case o f Nevada (New Brunswick: Rutgers U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1983). Ganz, G. Q u a s i - L e g i s l a t i o n : Recent Developments Secondary L e g i s l a t i o n (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1987). Geis, 1972).  G.  Not  the Law's Business ( R o c k v i l l e :  G u i l l e t , E.C. E a r l y L i f e i n Upper U n i v e r s i t y o f Toronto Press, 1963).  Canada  in  N.I.M.H., (Toronto:  G u s f i e l d , J.R. Symbolic Crusade: S t a t u s P o l i t i c s and the American Temperance Movement (Urbana: U n i v e r s i t y o f I l l i n o i s Press, 1963). Hart, H.L.A. Law. Liberty S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1963). Hawkins, K. and J . Thomas (Boston: K l u w e r - N i j h o f f , 1984) .  and  Morality  (eds.) E n f o r c i n g  (Stanford: Regulation  245 H i l l s , S.L. Crime. Power and M o r a l i t y : The C r i m i n a l Process i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s (Scranton: Chandler, 1971). Hogg, P.W. Constitutional (Toronto: C a r s w e l l , 1985). Houldsworth, W. A H i s t o r y (London: Methuen, 1966).  Law of  of  Canada  English  Law  Law  (2d  ed.)  (3rd  ed.)  Jacob, H. A S i l e n t R e v o l u t i o n : Routine P o l i c y and the T r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f Divorce Law i n the U n i t e d (Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago Press, 1988).  Making States  Jones. D. and A. de Villars. Principles A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law (Toronto: C a r s w e l l , 1985).  of  Kane, T.G. Consumers and R e g u l a t o r s : I n t e r v e n t i o n i n the F e d e r a l Regulatory Process (Montreal: I.R.P.P., 1980). Labrosse, M. The L o t t e r y : From Jacques C a r t i e r ' s Day Modern Times (Montreal: Stanke, 1985). Lee, S. Law Press, 1986).  and  Morality  L e s c a r b o t , M. History Champlain S o c i e t y , 1911).  of  (Oxford: New  Oxford  France  to  University  (Toronto:  The  Maranda, L. Coast Salish Gambling Games Canadian Ethnology S e r v i c e Paper No. 93. (Ottawa: N a t i o n a l Museums of Canada, 1984). McWhinney, E. Quebec and the C o n s t i t u t i o n 1960-1978 (Toronto: U n i v e r s i t y o f Toronto Press, 1979). Mill, J.S. C r o f t s , 1947).  On  Liberty  (New  Morin, C. Quebec v e r s u s Ottawa Toronto P r e s s , 1976). M o r r i s , N. Guide t o Crime Press, 1970).  York:  Appleton-Century  (Toronto: U n i v e r s i t y of  and G. Hawkins. The Honest P o l i t i c i a n ' s C o n t r o l (Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago  Morse, B.W.(ed.) A b o r i g i n a l Peoples and the Law: I n d i a n . M e t i s and I n u i t R i g h t s i n Canada (Ottawa: C a r l e t o n U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1985). Morton, J.D. The F u n c t i o n o f C r i m i n a l (Toronto: C.B.C. P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1962).  Law  O'Connor, J . The F i s c a l C r i s i s o f the S t a t e St M a r t i n ' s Press, 1973).  in (New  1962 York:  246 Packer. H. The Limits of the Criminal ( S t a n f o r d : S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1968).  Sanction  Ponting, J.R. and R. G i b b i n s . Out o f I r r e l e v a n c e : A S o c i o - p o l i t i c a l I n t r o d u c t i o n t o I n d i a n A f f a i r s i n Canada (Toronto: Butterworths, 1980). P r i c h a r d , J.R.S. (ed.) Crown C o r p o r a t i o n s i n Canada: The C a l c u l u s o f Instrument Choice (Toronto: B u t t e r w o r t h s , 1983) . (2d  Reid, R. and H. David. A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law ed.) (Toronto: Butterworths, 1978).  R i c h , R. Crimes Without C r i m i n a l Law (Washington, D.C: 1978). Rose, I.N. Times, 1986).  Gambling  and  and  Practice  V i c t i m s : Deviance and t h e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s o f America, t h e Law  (Hollywood:  Gambling  R u s s e l l , P.H. Leading C o n s t i t u t i o n a l D e c i s i o n s (Ottawa: C a r l e t o n U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1984).  (3d ed.)  Sanders, D.E. The F r i e n d l y Care and D i r e c t i n g Hand o f the Government: A Study o f Government T r u s t e e s h i p o f I n d i a n s i n Canada (Unpublished, 1977). Schur, E. Crimes Without V i c t i m s : Deviant Behavior and P u b l i c P o l i c y (Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1965). Schur, E. and H.A. Bedau. V i c t i m l e s s Crimes: Two S i d e s of a C o n t r o v e r s y (Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1974) . Skolnick, 1978) .  J . House o f Cards  Smiley, D.V. E i g h t i e s (3rd ed.)  (Toronto:  Brown,  Canada i n Q u e s t i o n : F e d e r a l i s m i n the (Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1980).  Smith, A. The Wealth o f N a t i o n s (New L i b r a r y , 1937) . (4th  Little,  York: The  Modern  de Smith, S.A. J u d i c i a l Review o f A d m i n i s t r a t i v e A c t i o n ed.) (London: Stevens, 1980).  Stephen, J . F . A Macmillan, 1877).  Digest  of  the  Criminal  Law  Stephen, J . F . L i b e r t y . E q u a l i t y . F r a t e r n i t y Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1967).  (London:  (Cambridge:  247 Stevenson, Gage, 1989).  G.  S t r e e t , H.A. Maxwell, 1937).  Unfulfilled The  Law  S t r e e t , H. J u s t i c e (London: Stevens, 1975).  in  of  Union  (3rd ed.)  Gaming  (London:  the  Welfare  State  (Toronto: Sweet  and  (2d  ed.)  Twentieth Century Fund. Easy Money: Report o f t h e Task Force on L e g a l i z e d Gambling (New York: T.C.F., 1974). W e i n s t e i n , D. and L. D e i t c h . The Impact o f L e g a l i z e d Gambling: The Socio-Economic Consequences o f L o t t e r i e s and O f f - T r a c k B e t t i n g (New York: Praeger, 1974). Wheare, K.C. F e d e r a l Government Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1964).  (4th ed.)  (New  York:  A r t i c l e s and Book Chapters  Acheson, K. "Revenue v s . P r o t e c t i o n : t h e p r i c i n g o f wine by the LCBO", (1977) 10 Canadian J o u r n a l o f Economics 246. Aucoin, P. "Theory and Research i n the study o f P o l i c y Making" i n G.B. Doern and P. Aucoin (eds.) The S t r u c t u r e s o f P o l i c y - M a k i n g i n Canada (Toronto: Macmillan, 1973). B a r t l e t t , R.H. "The B u f f a l o Law Review 581.  I n d i a n A c t o f Canada",  (1978)  27  B a r t l e t t , R.H. "Reserve Lands" and " T a x a t i o n " i n B.W. Morse (ed.) A b o r i g i n a l Peoples and the Law e t c . (Ottawa: C a r l e t o n U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1985) pp.467-578; 579-616. Breyer, S. " A n a l y z i n g R e g u l a t o r y F a i l u r e : Mismatches, Less R e s t r i c t i v e A l t e r n a t i v e s and Reform", (1979) 92 Harvard Law Review 549. Campbell, C. and J.R. Ponting, "The E v o l u t i o n o f Casino Gambling i n A l b e r t a " , (1984) 10 Canadian P u b l i c P o l i c y 142. Cote, J . "The R e c e p t i o n o f A l b e r t a Law Review 29.  English  Law",  (1977)  15  Cumming, P. "Canada's North and N a t i v e R i g h t s " i n B.W. Morse (ed.) A b o r i g i n a l Peoples and t h e Law e t c . (Ottawa: C a r l e t o n U.P., 1985) pp.695-744.  248 DeDominicis, C. " B e t t i n g on C a l i f o r n i a Lawyer 29.  Indian  Rights",  (1983)  3  Doern, G.B. "Regulatory Processes and Regulatory Agencies", i n G.B. Doern and P. Aucoin (eds.) P u b l i c P o l i c y i n Canada; O r g a n i z a t i o n . Process and Management (Toronto: Macmillan, 1979) pp.158-89. Dreidger E.A. "The Interaction of Federal P r o v i n c i a l Law", (1976) 54 Canadian Bar Review 695. Dworkin, R. "Lord D e v l i n and the Morals", (1966) 75 Y a l e Law J o u r n a l 1001.  Enforcement  and of  Fagan, N. "The Enforcement o f Gaming Debts i n B r i t a i n " , (1986) 8 New York Law School J o u r n a l o f I n t e r n a t i o n a l and Comparative Law 7. Feinberg, J. "Harmless Immoralities and Offensive Nuisances" i n N. Care and T. T r e l o g a n (eds.) Issues i n Law and M o r a l i t y ( C l e v e l a n d : Case Western Reserve U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1973) pp.83-109. Flanagan, T. "From I n d i a n T i t l e t o A b o r i g i n a l R i g h t s " , i n L. K n a f l a (ed.) Law and J u s t i c e i n a New Land: Essays i n Western Canadian Legal H i s t o r y (Toronto: C a r s w e l l , 1986) pp.81-100. Fletcher, F. and D. Wallace. " F e d e r a l - P r o v i n c i a l R e l a t i o n s and the Making of P u b l i c P o l i c y i n Canada: e t c . " i n R. Simeon (ed.) D i v i s i o n o f Powers and P u b l i c P o l i c y (Toronto: U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto Press, 1985). Freund, E. " L i c e n s i n g " i n E n c y c l o p a e d i a o f the S o c i a l S c i e n c e s V o l . 9, (New York: Macmillan, 1937) pp.447-451. Friedman, L. "Freedom of C o n t r a c t and Occupational L i c e n s i n g 1890-1910: A L e g a l and S o c i a l Study", (1965) 53 C a l i f o r n i a Law Review 487. Glickman, G.E. "Our Gaming Laws: C o n d i t i o n s Say the L e a s t " , (March, 1979) Canadian Lawyer 11.  Dicey  Hart, H.L.A. ( J u l y 30, 1959).  Listener  "Immorality  and  Treason",  The  to  Haslam, C.K. "Indian S o v e r e i g n t y : Confusion P r e v a i l s C a l i f o r n i a v . C a b a z o n B a n d o f M i s s i o n I n d i a n s " , Washington Law Review 169. Hehner, E. "Growth of D i s c r e t i o n s - D e c l i n e of Accounta b i l i t y " i n K. Kernaghan (ed.) P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n i n Canada: S e l e c t e d Readings (3rd ed.) (Toronto: Methuen, 1977) pp.323-333.  (1  249 Hughes, G. "Morals Y a l e Law J o u r n a l 662.  and t h e C r i m i n a l  Law",  (1962)  71  Hughes, P. "Indians and Lands Reserved f o r t h e I n d i a n s : O f f - L i m i t s t o t h e P r o v i n c e s ? " , (1983) 21 Osgoode H a l l Law J o u r n a l 82. I r v i n e , A.G. "The D e l e g a t i o n o f A u t h o r i t y t o Crown C o r p o r a t i o n s " , (1971) 14 Canadian P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n 556. Jackson, M. "The A r t i c u l a t i o n o f N a t i v e Canadian Law", (1984) 18 U.B.C. Law Review 255.  Rights  in  Kadish, S. "The C r i s i s o f O v e r - C r i m i n a l i z a t i o n " , (1967) 374 Annals o f t h e American Academy o f P o l i t i c a l and S o c i a l S c i e n c e 157. Keyes, J . "From Delegatus (1987) 33 M c G i l l Law J o u r n a l 50.  to a  Duty  t o Make  Law",  Kristjanson, K. "Crown C o r p o r a t i o n s : Administrative Responsibility and Public Accountability", (1968) 11 Canadian P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n 454. Kronowitz, R. e t a l . "Toward Consent and C o - o p e r a t i o n : Reconsidering the P o l i t i c a l Status o f Indian Nations", (1987) 22 Harvard C i v i l R i g h t s - C i v i l L i b e r t i e s Law Review 507. Langford, J . "Crown C o r p o r a t i o n s as Instruments o f p o l i c y " i n G.B. Doern and P. Aucoin (eds.) P u b l i c P o l i c y i n Canada (Toronto: Macmillan, 1979) pp.239-274. Levine, H.G. "The B i r t h o f American A l c o h o l C o n t r o l : prohibition, the power elite and the problem of l a w l e s s n e s s " , (1985) Contemporary Drug Problems 63. Lorbiecki, S.A. "Indian Sovereignty vs. Gambling Laws", (1985) 20 T u l s a Law J o u r n a l 605.  Oklahoma's  Lyon, N. " C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Issues i n N a t i v e Law" i n B.W. Morse (ed.) A b o r i g i n a l Peoples and t h e Law e t c . (Ottawa: C a r l e t o n U.P., 1985) pp.408-451. Lysyk, K. "The Unique C o n s t i t u t i o n a l P o s i t i o n o f t h e Canadian I n d i a n " , (1967) 45 Canadian Bar Review 513. Lysyk, K. "The Interdelegation Doctrine: A C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Paper T i g e r ? , (1969) 47 Canadian Bar Review 271. 11  Macdonald, R.A. "Understanding R e g u l a t i o n s " , i n i . B e r n i e r and A. L a J o i e  Regulation by (eds.) R e g u l a t i o n s .  250 Crown C o r p o r a t i o n s and A d m i n i s t r a t i v e T r i b u n a l s U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto Press, 1985) pp.81-154.  (Toronto:  Mason, M.D. "Canadian and U n i t e d S t a t e s Approaches t o I n d i a n S o v e r e i g n t y " , (1983) 21 Osqoode H a l l Law J o u r n a l 422. McDonnell, D.L. "Federal and State Regulation of Gambling and L i q u o r S a l e s W i t h i n I n d i a n Country", (1985) 8 Hamline Law Review 599. M c M i l l e n , J . "The S t i n g : S t a t e r e g u l a t i o n o f Gambling", (Unpublished paper presented t o the 3rd Law and S o c i e t y Conference i n Canberra, 1985). McNeil, K. "The C o n s t i t u t i o n a l R i g h t s o f the A b o r i g i n a l Peoples of Canada", (1982) 4 Supreme Court Law Review 255. Megarry, R.E. "Administrative (1944) 60 Law Q u a r t e r l y Review 125.  Quasi-Legislation",  M i e r s , D. "A S o c i a l and L e g a l H i s t o r y of Gaming: From the R e s t o r a t i o n t o the Gaming A c t , 1845", (Unpublished paper p r e s e n t e d a t the meeting of the West Coast Law and S o c i e t y group, Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y , Burnaby B.C., May, 1988). Molot, H.L. "The S e l f - C r e a t e d Rule of P o l i c y and Other Ways o f e x e r c i s i n g A d m i n i s t r a t i v e D i s c r e t i o n " , (1972) 18 M c G i l l Law J o u r n a l 310. Monachan, P.J. and A. Petter, C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Law: The 1985-86 Term", Court Law Review 69.  "Developments in (1987) 9 Supreme  Murray, W.F. "Gambling i s I l l e g a l i n Canada: Casino and Bingo Gaming in British Columbia", Bingo Caller News (15/8/88). Nagel, E. "The Enforcement of Morals", i n P. Kurtz (ed.) Moral Problems i n Contemporary S o c i e t y (Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1969) pp. 137-160. Nakaratsu, S. "A C o n s t i t u t i o n a l R i g h t o f I n d i a n S e l f Government", (1985) 43 U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto F a c u l t y o f Law Review 72. Osborne, J.A. and C.S. Campbell, "Recent Amendments t o Canadian L o t t e r y and Gaming Laws: The T r a n s f e r o f Power between Federal and Provincial Governments",(1988) 26 Osgoode H a l l Law J o u r n a l 19. Pibus, C.J. "The F i s h e r i e s A c t and N a t i v e Fishing Rights i n Canada: 1970-1980", (1981) 39 U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto F a c u l t y o f Law Review 43.  251 Rankin, M. "The Cabinet and the Agencies: Toward A c c o u n t a b i l i t y i n B r i t i s h Columbia", (1985) 19 U.B.C. Law Review 25. Ratushny, E. "What a r e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e T r i b u n a l s ? The Pursuit of Uniformity i n Diversity", (1987) 30 Canadian P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n 1. Roman, A . J . "Regulatory Law and Procedure" i n G.B. Doern (ed.) The Regulatory Process i n Canada (Toronto: Macmillan, 1978). Rose, I.N. "Current Issues i n Gambling Laws", W h i t t i e r Law Review 245. Sanders, D. "The A p p l i c a t i o n o f P r o v i n c i a l B.W. Morse (ed.) A b o r i g i n a l Peoples and t h e (Ottawa: C a r l e t o n U.P., 1985) pp.452-466.  (1985) 8 Laws" i n Law e t c .  S k o l n i c k , J . "Coercion t o V i r t u e : The Enforcement o f Morals", (1968) 41 Southern C a l i f o r n i a Law Review 588. Skolnick, J . "The S o c i a l Transformation (1988) 51 Law and Contemporary Problems 9. S k o l n i c k , J . and J . Dombrink, Deviance", (1978) 16 C r i m i n o l o g y 193.  "The  of  Vice",  Legalization  of  Slattery, B. "The Constitutional Guarantee of A b o r i g i n a l and T r e a t y R i g h t s " , (1983) 8 Queen's Law J o u r n a l 232. Slattery, B. "The Hidden C o n s t i t u t i o n : Aboriginal R i g h t s i n Canada" i n M. B o l d t and J.A. Long (eds.) The Quest f o r J u s t i c e e t c . (Toronto: U n i v e r s i t y o f Toronto Press, 1985) pp.114-138. S l a t t e r y , B. "Understanding A b o r i g i n a l 66 Canadian Bar Review 727.  Rights",  S t a r r , V. "Submission t o Task Force on Reserves" i n I n d i a n and Northern A f f a i r s Canada Gaming on Reserves (Ottawa: I.N.A.C, 1987).  (1987)  Gaming on (I.N.A.C.)  Stevenson, G. "The D i v i s i o n o f Powers" i n R. Simeon (ed.) D i v i s i o n o f Powers and P u b l i c Policy (Toronto: U n i v e r s i t y o f Toronto Press, 1985). Tennant, P. " A b o r i g i n a l R i g h t s and the Penner Report on I n d i a n S e l f Government" i n M. B o l d t and J.A. Long (eds.) The Quest f o r J u s t i c e e t c . (Toronto U.T.Press, 1985) pp.321-332.  252 Thomas, P. " A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law Reform: Legal v s . P o l i t i c a l C o n t r o l s on A d m i n i s t r a t i v e D i s c r e t i o n " , (1984) 27 Canadian P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n 120. Tokar, J . J . " A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law: C o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e Grounds o f J u d i c i a l Review", (1984) 14 Manitoba Law J o u r n a l 171. Turner, A.C. "Evolution, Assimilation, and State C o n t r o l o f Gambling i n Indian Country: I s Cabazon v . C a l i f o r n i a an A s s i m i l a t i o n i s t Wolf i n Preemption C l o t h i n g ? " , (1987-88) 24 Idaho Law Review 317. V a i l l a n c o u r t , F. and J . Grignon, "Canadian L o t t e r i e s as Taxes: Revenues and Incidence", (1988) 36 Canadian Tax J o u r n a l 369. Wade, H.W.R. " L i c e n s i n g and N a t u r a l J u s t i c e " , (1970) 86 Law Q u a r t e r l y Review 309. W e i l e r , P.C. "The Supreme Court and t h e Law o f Canadian Federalism", (1969) 23 U n i v e r s i t y o f Toronto Law J o u r n a l 307. W i l l i a m s , G. " C o n t r o l L e g a l Problems 81.  by  Licensing",  [1967]  Current  W i l l i s , J . "The McRuer Report: Lawyers' V a l u e s and C i v i l S e r v a n t s ' Values", (1968) 18 U n i v e r s i t y o f Toronto Law J o u r n a l 351. Wollheim, R. "Crime, S i n and Mr J u s t i c e D e v l i n " , 13 Encounter 34. Young, R.E. " L i c e n s i n g , Legislative Bias L i m i t a t i o n o f L i b e r t y " , (1987) 45 Advocate 829.  (1959)  and t h e  Government P u b l i c a t i o n s  British Columbia Gaming Commission. Report t o t h e A t t o r n e y General by t h e Gaming Commission on t h e S t a t u s o f Gaming i n B r i t i s h Columbia ( V i c t o r i a : B.C.G.C., 1988). Canada. Commissioners on U n i f o r m i t y Proceedings o f t h e 42nd Annual Meeting P r i n t e r , 1960).  of Legislation. (Ottawa: Queen's  Canada. Indian and Northern A f f a i r s , Statement o f t h e Government o f Canada on Indian P o l i c y . 1969 (Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1969).  253 Canada. I n d i a n and Northern A f f a i r s , Summary o f t h e Report o f t h e Task Force on I n d i a n Economic Development (Ottawa: Supply and S e r v i c e s , 1986). Canada. Indian and Northern Affairs, Reserves: D i s c u s s i o n Paper (Ottawa: INAC, 1987).  Gaming  on  Canada. J o i n t Committee o f t h e Senate and t h e House o f Commons on C a p i t a l and C o r p o r a l Punishment and L o t t e r i e s , Report (Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1956). Law  Canada. Law Reform Commission. Report #3: Our C r i m i n a l (Ottawa: I n f o r m a t i o n Canada, 1976).  Canada. Law Reform Commission. Report #26: Independent A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Agencies (Ottawa: Supply and S e r v i c e s , 1985). Canada. Law Reform Commission. Working Paper #51: P o l i c y Implementation. Compliance and A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law (Ottawa: Supply ands S e r v i c e s , 1986). Canada. M i n i s t r y o f t h e S o l i c i t o r Paper: Legalized Gambling I n Canada. M i n i s t r y o f S o l i c i t o r General, 1988).  General. Working (Draft) (Ottawa:  Canada. P a r l i a m e n t . House o f Commons S p e c i a l Committee on B i l l No. 93 "An A c t R e s p e c t i n g t h e C r i m i n a l Law etc".Minutes o f Proceedings and Evidence (Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1953). Canada. Privy Council Office. Direction. Control. Accountability S e r v i c e s , 1977).  Crown Corporations: (Ottawa: Supply and  Canada. Report o f t h e S p e c i a l Committee o f t h e House o f Commons on I n d i a n S e l f Government (Ottawa: Supply and S e r v i c e s , 1983). Canada. Royal Commission on t h e R e v i s i o n of the C r i m i n a l Code. Report (Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1952). Canada. Task Force on Canadian Unity. A Future Together:Recommendations o f t h e Task Force on Canadian U n i t y (Ottawa: Supply and S e r v i c e s , 1979). Canada C o u n c i l . L o t t e r i e s and t h e A r t s : The Canadian E x p e r i e n c e 1970-1980 (Ottawa: Canada C o u n c i l , 1982). Economic C o u n c i l o f Canada. R e s p o n s i b l e R e g u l a t i o n : An I n t e r i m Report (Ottawa: Supply and S e r v i c e s , 1979). Great B r i t a i n . Committee on Homosexual O f f e n c e s and P r o s t i t u t i o n . Report (London: H.M.S.O., 1957).  254 Great B r i t a i n . House o f Lords S e l e c t Committee Laws R e s p e c t i n g Gaming. Reports (London, 1844).  on t h e  Great B r i t a i n . Report o f t h e Royal Commission Gambling (London: H.M.S.O. Cmnd. 7200, 1978). Great B r i t a i n . Royal Commission Report (London: H.M.S.O., 1932).  on  on  Lotteries etc.  O n t a r i o . Department o f A r c h i v e s . S i x t e e n t h Report: Land Settlement i n Upper Canada 1783-1840 (Toronto: King's P r i n t e r , 1921). Quebec. Commission o f I n q u i r y i n t o t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of J u s t i c e e t c . Crime . J u s t i c e and S o c i e t y . V o l . 3: Crime i n Quebec - Organized Crime (Quebec C i t y , 1969. U.S. Commission on t h e R e v i s i o n o f t h e N a t i o n a l P o l i c y Toward Gambling. Gambling i n America (Washington, D . C : Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1976). U.S. C o u n c i l o f S t a t e Governments. Gambling: of S t a t e Revenues (Lexington: n.p., 1973).  A Source  U.S. Department o f J u s t i c e . L.E.A.A. The Development o f the Law o f Gambling 1776-1976 (Washington D . C : U.S. P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1977).  Cases  Re A n t i - I n f l a t i o n Reference. [1976] 2 S.C.R. 373. A t t o r n e y General f o r B.C. v. P a r k l a n e P r i v a t e e t a l . [1975] 2 S.C.R. 47. A t t o r n e y General f o r Nova f o r Canada. [1952] 2 S.C.R. 31  Scotia  Attorney General f o r Ontario Railway. [1903] A.C. 524 (P.C.)  v. A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l v.  Hamilton  A t t o r n e y General f o r O n t a r i o [1924] A.C. 328 (P.C.).  v. R e c i p r o c a l  A t t o r n e y General f o r Quebec C.C.C. 166 (Queb.Ct.Sess.)  v. W i l l i a m s .  1185  Hospital  Street  Insurers. (1944)  82  Barona Group o f C a p i t a n Grande Band v. D u f f y. 694 F.2d (1982).  255 Bingo E n t e r p r i s e s L t d . e t a l . v. Manitoba L o t t e r i e s and Gaming L i c e n s i n g Board, (1983) 2 Admin. L.R. 286 (Man.C.A.). C.P.R. v. Notre (P.C).  Dame de Bonsecours. [1899] A.C. 367  C a l i f o r n i a v . Cabazon Band o f M i s s i o n 55 Law Week 4225. C a p i t a l C i t i e s Inc. v. C.R.T.C..[1976] C h a r i t y Vending L t d . v. A l b e r t a (1988) 43 C.C.C.(3d) 250 (Alta.Q.B.).  Indians.  (1987)  2 S.C.R. 141.  Gaming  Commission.  C i t y o f Montreal v. A t t o r n e y General f o r Quebec.[1970] S.C.R. 332. Energy Probe v. Atomic Energy C o n t r o l F.C. 227 (F.C.T.D.). Hodge v. The Queen. Jenks v. T u r p i n .  Board. [1984] 2  (1883) 8 A.C. 117 ( P . C ) .  (1884) 13 Q.B.D. 505.  Johnson v . A t t o r n e y General f o r A l b e r t a .  [1954] S.C.R.  127. Lord's Day A l l i a n c e o f Canada v. A t t o r n e y General f o r Canada. [1925] A.C. 384 (P.C.) Lord's Day A l l i a n c e o f Canada v . A t t o r n e y General f o r B.C..[1959] S.C.R. 497. Re Mia and t h e M e d i c a l S e r v i c e s (1985) 17 D.L.R. (4th) 385 (B.C.S.C.) Morgentaler v. The Queen  f  Commission  o f B.C..  [1976] 1 S.C.R. 616.  N a t i v e Communications S o c i e t y o f B.C. v. The M i n i s t e r of N a t i o n a l Revenue, V o l . 11(8) Canadian Human R i g h t s Reporter (Sept. 1986). Oneida Indians v. Wisconsin. 518 F.Supp. 712 (1981). al.  f  Re P e r a l t a e t a l . and t h e Queen i n r i g h t o f O n t a r i o e t (1985) 49 O.R. (2d) 705 (Ont.C.A.)  P.E.I. Marketing S.C.R. 392.  Board v. H.B. W i l l i s  I n c . . T19521  2  R. V. Agawa. [1988] 3 C.N.L.R. 73 (Ont.C.A.) R. v . Furtnev e t a l . . Unreported Court o f O n t a r i o , September, 1988.  decision  o f Supreme  256 R. v. Harper.  (1892) 15 The L e g a l News 179 (Queb. Mag.  Ct.) . R. v. Karminos  r  [1936] 2 D.L.R.353 (Sask. C.A.).  R. v. Lamontagne,  [1954] 4 D.L.R. 161 (Ont. C.A.).  R. v. Lane. [1937] 1 D.L.R. 212 (N.B.S.C.). R. v. Morgentaler e t a l . . (1988) 37 C.C.C. (S.C.C.). Scarborough Community [1985] 2 F.C. 555 (F.C.A.). Seminole (1981).  Legal  Services  v.  (3d) 449  The  Queen.  T r i b e o f F l o r i d a v. Butterworth. 658 F.2d 310  Re Stacey and Montour and t h e Queen, (2d) 61 (Queb. C.A.). R. v. Morgentaler (S.C.C).  e t a l . . (1988)  37  (1981) 63 C.C.C. C.C.C. (3d)  449  Twinn e t a l . v. Canada. (1987) 6 F.T.R. 41. U.S. v. Dakota. 796 F.2d 186 (1986). U.S. v. F a r r i s . 624 F.2d 892 (1980). Western Canada Wilderness Committee e t a l . v. M i n i s t e r of Environment and Parks (B.C.), (1988) 25 B.C.L.R. (2d) 93 (B*C*S*C«)• W i s c o n s i n Winnebago v. K o b e r s t e i n . 762 F.2d 614 (1985).  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share