Ah, to be a constitutional lawyer. Sorting out the North America Free Trade Agreement is simple when compared to defining Canadian’s beer drinking freedoms.
One should have thought it would be easy to sort out our beer drinking rights by referring to The Constitution Act of 1867. Section 121 would seem to be direct enough – “All Articles of Growth, Produce and Manufacture of any of the Provinces shall, from and after the Union, be admitted free into each of the other Provinces.” That includes beer surely. Our Constitution Act of 1982, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, did nothing to alter this.
Our Supreme Court has decided the contrary. The court has just ruled that the phrase "admitted free" is ambiguous. Instead, the justices decided that "full economic integration would undermine the very nature of our country which is built on regional diversity." Thus, a province must be allowed to pass laws which achieve other goals (i.e. protecting New Brunswick beer drinkers from access to Quebec suds) – even if it overrides Section 121. The Supreme Court has called such restrictions on the transfer of goods "incidental effects." Clearly Section 121 is now redundant if not unpatriotic.
Happily the North American Free Trade Agreement and our Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement with the European Union, in particular, drove provinces to try to ensure that Canadian companies and trades have at least the same rights as foreign ones. And neither the United States or the EU want to negotiate trade agreements with our provinces. Further, in 2017, our provinces concluded a Canadian Free Trade Agreement which, at last, addressed the full range of inter-provincial trade issues including an appeal process. Issues remain of course – such as food inspection processes, training requirements for trades, registration of professionals and occupational health and safety issues. Thus, until the most recent Supreme Court ruling, we seem to have been making progress. The Supreme Court ignored this document.
Unfortunately none of these help us with our Trans Mountain Pipeline debacle. And to be fair, I am sympathetic with the evangelically proclaimed determination of the British Columbia government to prevent the contamination of the earth by tripling the amount of Alberta oil to be piped through their lands and destined to foreign countries. Enthused by my Canadian disposition for fair play, honesty and generosity of spirit, I happened to take a peek at the international trade data from B.C. In 2017, B.C. exports totalled $43.7 billion worth of goods and commodities. Of that amount, $11 billion, or 25 per cent was energy. Natural gas and electricity accounted for $3.4 billion. But it was coal that made up the bulk of energy exports to the tune of $6.6 billion. The principal customers were Japan, Korea and China.
Is it possible then that the B.C. government, rather than wishing to save the planet from despoliation as China, Korea and Japan burn atmosphere-polluting Alberta oil, are more concerned about Alberta oil supplanting B.C. coal as an energy source in these countries. Let us not refer this to the Supreme Court please.
- reprinted from St. Albert Gazette. Written by Alan Murdock
