Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Editorial: A new weapon

A Supreme Court ruling on booze in New Brunswick could have an impact on pipelines in B.C. No doubt, lawyers across the country are reading it with great care.

A Supreme Court ruling on booze in New Brunswick could have an impact on pipelines in B.C. No doubt, lawyers across the country are reading it with great care.

New Brunswick resident Gérard Comeau, in search of a good deal, bought a load of alcohol in Quebec to take home. But Mounties stopped him for taking booze across provincial boundaries and he had to pay $240 in fines and fees.

The Supreme Court last week upheld the punishment, and in the process had a lot to say about Section 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which says anything grown or produced in one province should be “admitted free” into any other province.

It sounds as if Comeau should have got off, but the court said interprovincial trade can be restricted if it’s necessary to a higher purpose such as protecting health and safety or controlling the supply of liquor. However, the justices said, restrictions can’t be used to punish another province or to protect a local industry.

Were they thinking of Alberta’s new bill to restrict shipments of gas and other petroleum products to B.C.? Were they thinking of B.C.’s attempts to control how much diluted bitumen flows through the proposed Trans Mountain pipeline expansion?

Alberta Premier Rachel Notley certainly made her bill sound like punishment for B.C.’s role in Kinder Morgan’s decision to put the pipeline on hold.

The court did say it wasn’t ruling on any federal laws. Ottawa’s power to push through the pipeline seems to be unaffected.

However, Alberta and B.C. just got handed another potential weapon in their dispute.