New Brunswick Beer Problem PDF

Preview

Summary

Download New Brunswick Beer Problem PDF

Description

The Case of Beer: Changing the laws of Canada One Saturday in October 2012 New Brunswick resident Mr. Gérard Comeau drove to Pointe-à-la-Croix in the province of Québec to buy some cheap beer. On his way home Mr. Comeau was stopped by the New Brunswick police who were targeting people who had in excess of five cases of beer in their possession when crossing the border. Mr. Comeau had gone to Pointe-à-la-Croix specifically to purchase alcoholic beverages at a cheaper price than he would have paid had he purchased the alcohol in New Brunswick. The total alcohol seized was 354 bottles or cans of beer and three bottles of liquor. Mr. Comeau was fined $292.50 under paragraph 134(b) of the New Brunswick Liquor Control Act and allowed to leave. Mr. Comeau decided to fight the ticket in court claiming that section 134(b) of the New Brunswick Liquor Control Act (which states that New Brunswick residents may only purchase, have or keep liquor from the New Brunswick Liquor Corporation, with some exceptions as provided by the Act or the regulations), is not an enforceable provincial law since it is contrary to section 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Section 121 of the Constitution Act 1867 states that: “All Articles of the Growth, Produce, or Manufacture of any one of the Provinces shall, from and after the Union, be admitted free into each of the other Provinces.” Mr. Comeau’s defense maintains that section 121 of the really meant free trade without trade barriers -- tariff or non-tariff -- among provinces regardless of whether the barrier is found in provincial or federal legislation. Simply, NB 134(b) is a trade barrier. The New Brunswick judge agreed with Mr. Comeau and ruled in his favor. LeBlanc's ruling in R. v Comeau held that the 1920 case was wrongly decided by the Supreme Court and took a broader interpretation of the trade clause in the Constitution. The New Brunswick Justice LeBlanc ruled that the historical context of the Canadian Constitution leads to only one conclusion: The Fathers of Confederation wanted to implement free trade as between the provinces of the newly formed Canada. The government of New Brunswick argues three points:  Provincial governments have justified the limits on the interprovincial movement of liquor and other products based on a 1920 Supreme Court decision interpretation of Section 121 of the Constitution found in Gold Seal Ltd. v Dominion Express Co. that ruled Section 121 meant only that provinces couldn't impose customs barriers such tariff–type barriers at their borders and did not restrict the use of non-duty and nontariff barriers.  Provincial governments view the ruling as an unfair erosion of provincial economic autonomy. While regulation of interprovincial trade falls under the jurisdiction of federal Parliament frequently per section 91(2), this overlaps with the provincial powers granted by 92(13) power over property and civil rights. Section 92(13) is an Page 1 of 2



exceptionally broad provision, and given that section 134(b) of the Liquor Control Act sought to regulate private ownership of liquor products from outside the province, it is likely that the Act was enacted pursuant to this power. Comeau would thus significantly curtail the provinces’ ability to regulate the movement of goods across provincial borders. For example, Nunavut argued. “For us, it’s a question of protecting public health and safety … For us, it’s not banning import of alcohol. Legislative co-operation is required, as between the federal government and the provincial legislatures as one of the four foundational principles of the Canadian constitution. It gives Canada its unique political character by recognizing the diversity of the component parts of the Constitution and the autonomy of provincial governments to develop their provinces within their respective spheres of jurisdiction. Otherwise, market forces would push provinces and territories to the lowest common denominator in price and availability — depriving them of the right to decide for themselves how to balance the considerations of public health and safety, revenue, and consumer convenience and satisfaction.”

The New Brunswick government appealed that decision to the Supreme Court. In May 2017 the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Questions: 1. What are the pros and cons to the SCC decision in favor of Mr. Comeau? Many agree with Mr. Comeau. The problem is unnecessary differences in provincial and territorial regulations, leading to complex, and costly compliance requirements for businesses operating across provincial boundaries. In other more egregious cases, like restrictions on the interprovincial movement of alcohol, it is nothing less than out-andout protectionism. Freer trade among provinces and territories would lower the cost of doing business in Canada, attract more investment, and provide more choices at more competitive prices for consumers. On the other hand, the SCC is being asked to allow province’s regulatory authority over property and civil rights. The judgment jeopardizes valid provincial laws (including those that impose non-tariff barriers) which are in pith and substance related to intraprovincial trade and are valid exercises of the section 92(13) power, on the grounds that they incidentally impact interprovincial trade. 2. What do you think the views of the business community are on the outcome of this court case? Beer businesses wants people to stay and buy beer in New Brunswick 3. Do you think that each province should be able to set the rules for their own jurisdictions? Why?

Saskatchewan has highest rate of labour, low wage.

Page 2 of 2...