Top court upholds booze barriers

Critics disappointed as Supreme Court says laws rest with provinces

OTTAWA— Gerard Comeau wasn’t the only one shaking his head when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Thursday there is no “constitutional guarantee of free trade” within Canada. “Money’s more important than liberties, I guess,” the 64year-old retired lineman said.

Comeau’s bid to strike down the New Brunswick Liquor Control Act’s limits on crossborder beer shopping failed, but he became the champion of free-traders across Canada.

Now some of his supporters hope all the attention his case, and the social media campaign dubbed #freethebeer, brought to the issue will galvanize pro- vincial and federal leaders to drop barriers they say add $50 billion to $130 billion in extra costs to goods and services that cross provincial borders.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the 1867 constitution did not impose “an absolute free trade regime within Canada.”

The judgment makes clear any decision to knock down interprovincial trade barriers would be a political one, not a judicially imposed one.

It cited the “need to maintain balance” within the Canadian version of federalism, saying provinces are free to pass laws in a whole range of areas they control, as long as the law’s primary purpose is not aimed at blocking trade across provincial borders.

Any other interpretation, warned the court, could lead to a whole slew of laws being inval- idated: environmental or public health regulations, agricultural controls on the production and distribution of eggs, dairy or poultry, for example, and “innumerable” other exercises of provincial jurisdiction.

Comeau was stopped in October 2012 after crossing the Quebec border with 14 cases of beer and three bottles of booze in his trunk.

The Mounties, trying to crack down on bootleggers, stung him with a $292 ticket for exceeding the province’s import limit of a dozen beers and a bottle of liquor.

On Thursday, Corinne Pohlmann, of the federation representing small businesses, said it’s now up to provinces to eliminate costly, excessive regulations as they agreed to do in the Canadian Free Trade Agreement, signed last year.

“We are calling the provinces to get their act together and break down the barriers, and ensure that real free trade is possible across Canada.”

Dan Paszkowski, president of the Canadian Vintners Association, said he was “extremely disappointed” in the decision.

“We are the only wine-producing country in the world that does not allow consumers to order wine from a different part of the country.”

Only B.C., Manitoba and Nova Scotia allow wineries to ship direct to consumers, he said.

Advocates such as lawyer Rob Cunningham of the Canadian Cancer Society, on the other hand, welcomed the high court’s reinforcement of provincial powers to regulate and tax harmful substances, such as tobacco, alcohol and, soon, cannabis.

Lawyer Howard Anglin of the Canadian Constitutional Foun- dation, which intervened at the high court in support of Comeau’s arguments, said it’s clear the provinces are reluctant to move.

Anglin believes the ruling actually provides an opportunity for a federal government or federal party leader to push to lower trade barriers, using the federal power to regulate trade and commerce.

The high court ruled there is “no constitutional guarantee of free trade” within Canada, but it did not say there is a requirement to impede it, Anglin said.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said his government will take time to study the ruling and look at the “ramifications of it.” He acknowledged there are “still a number of issues” to be pursued, but said the internal free trade deal is “a significant step forward towards full free trade within Canada.”