Historic Case Involving Interprovincial Trade Being Heard In Canada Supreme Court

0
Historic Case Involving Interprovincial Trade Being Heard In Canada Supreme Court
Historic Case Involving Interprovincial Trade Being Heard In Canada Supreme Court

The restriction on importing alcohol in the Canadian province of New Brunswick is not only for generating revenue but also for fulfilling constitutional obligations, according to a prosecutor representing the province before the Supreme Court of Canada.

The province’s attorney general is appealing Gerard Comeau’s acquittal in 2016,  who had argued that he had the constitutional right to buy cheaper beer in Quebec and bring it back .

The case is being held by a nine-justice panel and may have far-reaching implications on issues surrounding interprovincial trade and consumer choice.

New Brunswick Law Helps Cover Social Costs  

New Brunswick Prosecutor Bill Richards noted alcohol was a “huge money-maker” for the province but added that the provisions restricting importing of alcohol had a “higher purpose” .

He pointed out that the law enables the province to control the distribution of “a controlled substance” and ensures revenues to provide associated health and welfare benefits for citizens.

Submissions were also made by the attorneys general of several other states such as Quebec, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, British Columbia, and Alberta, as well as by a lawyer representing a group of agriculture supply management associations.

Twelve other interveners including Comeau’s lawyers will also be making submissions.

Case Began in 2012 With Comeau Being Fined

Comeau was stopped by the RCMP in 2012 at the New Brunswick-Quebec border and fined $292.50 for flouting the New Brunswick Liquor Control Act. The law limits personal importation of alcohol to 12 pints of beer or one bottle of wine/spirits.

He challenged the charge and in 2016, Campbellton provincial court Judge Ronald LeBlanc  ruled that the liquor restriction was unconstitutional because Section 121 of the Constitution Act allows products to move freely between provinces.

New Brunswick appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada after the province’s top court turned down the case.

Case Can Have Far Reaching Implications

Several experts believe that the case could have a huge impact on the Canadian economy.

Michel Kelly-Gagnon, president and CEO of the Montreal Economic Institute,  noted that if the court upholds the freedom of product between provinces, then several trade barriers could come down.

Ontario MP John Nater has also expressed hope that the Supreme Court’s decision in the appeal could be a “positive first step” in tackling interprovincial trade barriers.

But according to New Brunswick prosecutors, if the Supreme Court supports Comeau’s acquittal then it might be “an end to Canadian federalism as it was originally conceived, has politically evolved and is judicially confirmed”

The Court has previously held that the Section 121 deals with only “customs duties.”

Troubled Relationship with Alcohol

Comeau’s lawyers hold that the Fathers of Confederation had aimed to create a country free of trade barriers.

Most of the private interveners are supporting Comeau’s position and are seeking fewer barriers which they believe will be better for them and the whole country as it can likely add around $50 billion to $130 billion to the country’s gross domestic product.

However lawyers of two provinces spoke of the negative impact of alcohol on people.

The lawyer appearing for the Northwest Territories said that intoxicants were a “complex issue” and were a source for health and social stressors, adding that the restrictions in the state’s laws were more to do with public health rather than trade.

Similarly John MacLean of Nunavut also said that there was an “unhealthy relationship” between alcohol and the citizens of Nunavut.

Submissions are expected to continue before the Supreme Court this week.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here