http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/how-free-the-beer-ruling-could-impact-the-b-c-alberta-pipeline-war-1.4624756
How 'Free the Beer' ruling could impact the B.C.-Alberta pipeline war
Top court says a province can impose trade barriers, but not if the sole purpose is to punish
· CBC News· Posted: Apr 19, 2018 2:48 PM PT
"The Supreme Court of Canada's ruling in one man's battle to bring cheap Quebec beer across the border to his New Brunswick home could end up having implications in the pipeline war between Alberta and B.C. In a unanimous decision, Canada's highest court rejected the "Free the Beer" case as it's become known, upholding the right of a province to impose provincial trade barriers in certain situations. But part of the judgment reiterated what the Constitution already states: that provinces cannot impose trade restrictions with the sole intent of punishing other provinces. That's where the fight over the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline expansion comes into it, especially in relation to Alberta's attempts to thwart opposition to the project by banning B.C. wines and restricting gas exports."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-trans-mountain-1.4620672
"Couillard's reproaches this week are about more than dodging a bullet. His government has invested significant time, and some money, into trying to develop a new dynamic for Quebec within the federation.
Last year, it released an ambitious proposal to revisit elements of the Constitution, hoping to lay the groundwork for someday — maybe, possibly — having Quebec finally sign on.
Trudeau trashed the idea before having read the 200-page document, perhaps envisioning another Meech Lake or Charlottetown."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-oil-gas-producers-support-notley-government-bill-12-1.4622717
Notley's Bill 12 'shows bold leadership,' say Alberta oil and gas producers
Industry officials say it's unfortunate, but proposed law is necessary to protect Alberta's interests
· CBC News· Posted: Apr 17, 2018 6:54 AM MThttp://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-trans-mountain-1.4620672
Why Quebec waded into the Trans Mountain pipeline spat
It's likely few out West appreciate Quebec's thoughts on the pipeline, but Couillard weighed in anyway
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this story.
George Reid
Stop taking billions in equalization payments and then you can have an opinion
David Amos
@George Reid "It's really just a long argument for cooperative federalism, which boils down to Ottawa seeking provincial input on important issues, even if it doesn't have to, according to the Constitution."
Methinks this is the point of this article in a nutshell N'esy Pas?
Methinks this is the point of this article in a nutshell N'esy Pas?
Bobby Parv
Quebec needs to mind it's own business.
@Bobby Parv "Quebec needs to mind it's own business."
I agree their Attorney General has ignored my lawsuit for way past too long.
I agree their Attorney General has ignored my lawsuit for way past too long.
clayton james
Time to run that Energy East pipeline through Québec to the east coast so we longer have to import oil from Saudi Arabia.
David Amos
@clayton james "Time to run that Energy East pipeline through Québec"
YUP
YUP
Vladimir Ilyitch
Quebec, an honourable province should do the only honourable thing available to them now that 'Sovereignty Association" is passe. Graciously decline the petro dollars coming from Alberta in the future, then your opinion may be worth something, until then, it would be best to remain quiet whilst you accept your annual $11 billion unearned windfall.
David Amos
@Vladimir Ilyitch "annual $11 billion unearned windfall."
Wow has it really grown to be that much?
Wow has it really grown to be that much?
dale mcrobie
Quebec needs to take a good long look at itself in the mirror, seriously. Maybe they could start by calling themselves Canadian French instead of French Canadian, cause the rest of us see through their game.
Julien Lemieux
@dale mcrobie
Is it OK for you if we keep calling ourselves Québécois?
Quebecers is our way of being Canadian!
Is it OK for you if we keep calling ourselves Québécois?
Quebecers is our way of being Canadian!
David Amos
@Julien Lemieux Call yourself whatever you wish as is your right and I will do the same.
Eileane Dover
The governments of BC and Quebec have at least two things in common: raw sewage and shameless hypocrisy.
David Amos
@Eileane Dover "The governments of BC and Quebec have at least two things in common: raw sewage and shameless hypocrisy."
May I quote you or merely practice plagiarism ?
May I quote you or merely practice plagiarism ?
Chris Hatherley
Quebec shouldn't get one nickel from Alberta.....Ever. Just like newfoundland electrical power generation grossly remunerates Quebec for decades, so too do Albertan oil reserves pay for Quebec's social spending.
Jayme Reid
@Chris Hatherley
Alberta would suffer more then Quebec.
Alberta would suffer more then Quebec.
David Amos
@Jayme Reid How so?
Glenda Whitford
Why would anyone listen to or even care what Couillard has to say about anything. His real true concerns about anything outside Quebec is zero...except cheques of course.
David Amos
@Glenda Whitford "Why would anyone listen to or even care what Couillard has to say about anything."
Methinks for certain politicians it should go under the heading of "Know Thy Foe" N'esy Pas?
Methinks for certain politicians it should go under the heading of "Know Thy Foe" N'esy Pas?
Gordon MacFarlane
Quebec, as a province in Canada has every right to an opinion.
That opinion carries the same weight as the opinion of any other province.
Like, for example Prince Edward Island
That opinion carries the same weight as the opinion of any other province.
Like, for example Prince Edward Island
Rob Lehtisaari
@Gordon MacFarlane
Ah...PEI
The Province Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed Ontarian, Micheal Duffy as Senator for, then tapped to use such position & resources for Party fundraising, and Campaigning-- then attempted to bribe with hush money--then attempted a mass conspiracy out of his office to market said "Bribe" as a "RBC loan".
PEI: The Province/small island of tubers & Cabin for the Duffy's.
When will Andrew Scheer address the PMO Briber Scandal--how can he trust Harper with all the party funds and accounts after such a record?
Ah...PEI
The Province Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed Ontarian, Micheal Duffy as Senator for, then tapped to use such position & resources for Party fundraising, and Campaigning-- then attempted to bribe with hush money--then attempted a mass conspiracy out of his office to market said "Bribe" as a "RBC loan".
PEI: The Province/small island of tubers & Cabin for the Duffy's.
When will Andrew Scheer address the PMO Briber Scandal--how can he trust Harper with all the party funds and accounts after such a record?
David Amos
@Rob Lehtisaari Methinks Quebec has lots such scandals as well N'esy Pas?
Why Quebec waded into the Trans Mountain pipeline spat
It's likely few out West appreciate Quebec's thoughts on the pipeline, but Couillard weighed in anyway
Quebec's leaders spent last week sending ominous signs they don't like how this whole Trans Mountain pipeline thing is shaking out.
Premier Philippe Couillard was standing next to Justin Trudeau in Montreal when the prime minister declared on Tuesday that Ottawa was "determined to see that pipeline built" despite the opposition of the British Columbia government.
Couillard stayed quiet at the time, but grew more garrulous a few days later. "I'd be very careful," he said in comments directed at the feds.
Trudeau's intention to override B.C.'s concerns about the environmental impact of the pipeline was "not a good sign for federalism," the premier added.
The federal government was encouraging "developers to ignore provincial environmental rules which were adopted in the interest of citizens who are concerned or impacted by the implementation of these projects," Fournier wrote.
"Ignoring provincial legislation in no way fosters social acceptability."
Sympathy pains
For the pipeline's backers, Quebec's contribution to the controversy was hardly welcome. It has helped turbo-charge an already sensitive issue. Few can now claim that it's just a local spat between two provinces.
So why wade uninvited into a debate happening on the other side of the country?
One hypothesis: Couillard is experiencing sympathy pains for his B.C. counterpart, John Horgan.
Couillard could have found himself in a similar position had another oil giant, TransCanada, not dropped its plans to build the Energy East pipeline, which would have carried crude oil from Alberta to New Brunswick.
The pipeline was deeply unpopular in Quebec among federalists and sovereigntists alike. But pipelines crossing provincial boundaries fall under federal jurisdiction. Ottawa would have final say.
To counter its lack of jurisdictional clout, Quebec insisted the pipeline couldn't be built without meeting its own environmental standards.
What would Couillard have done had the BAPE recommendations run counter to the federal government's desires?
He was spared that headache when plans for the pipeline collapsed last fall. Unlike with the Trans Mountain project, Ottawa wasn't interested in shepherding Energy East through to conclusion.
Betting on cooperative federalism
But Couillard's reproaches this week are about more than dodging a bullet. His government has invested significant time, and some money, into trying to develop a new dynamic for Quebec within the federation.
Last year, it released an ambitious proposal to revisit elements of the Constitution, hoping to lay the groundwork for someday — maybe, possibly — having Quebec finally sign on.
Trudeau trashed the idea before having read the 200-page document, perhaps envisioning another Meech Lake or Charlottetown.
From Couillard's perspective, such a commitment would prevent scenarios such as the one unfolding in B.C., where the feds are pulling rank.
In Quebec, such a move would risk fanning the cooling embers of the sovereigntist movement.
Couillard's wager is that cooperative federalism would prevent such flashpoints of constitutional strife.
And in doing so, open the prospect of neutralizing the sovereigntist threat for another generation.
For the moment, though, Ottawa appears intent on heading in a different direction.
How 'Free the Beer' ruling could impact the B.C.-Alberta pipeline war
Top court says a province can impose trade barriers, but not if the sole purpose is to punish
· CBC News· Posted: Apr 19, 2018 2:48 PM PT
The Supreme Court of Canada's ruling in one man's battle to bring cheap Quebec beer across the border to his New Brunswick home could end up having implications in the pipeline war between Alberta and B.C.
In a unanimous decision, Canada's highest court rejected the "Free the Beer" case as it's become known, upholding the right of a province to impose provincial trade barriers in certain situations.
That's where the fight over the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline expansion comes into it, especially in relation to Alberta's attempts to thwart opposition to the project by banning B.C. wines and restricting gas exports.
![]()
A threat by Alberta to limit gas exports to B.C. would push prices at the pump much higher but may ultimately be ruled unconstitutional. (GP Mendoza) B.C.'s attorney general said Thursday's Supreme Court decision confirms what he's always argued: Alberta's actions are both unconstitutional and unlawful.
"The court specifically noted that provinces are not allowed to impose tariffs, or rules like tariffs, to punish other provinces. That's exactly what we've been saying in response to Alberta's proposed legislation," said David Eby.
"The problem for [Alberta Premier Rachel Notley] is that she's given press conferences where she's saying explicitly 'I'm going to punish British Columbia.' And the court literally uses the word 'punish' to say that's something you can't do."
![]()
The Alberta government tried to punish B.C. for opposing the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project by banning B.C. wines. (Jeff McIntosh/Canadian Press) University of Alberta associate law professor Eric Adams agrees.
"The ruling today just furthers my confidence that a great deal of those explicit attempts to punish your neighbour through trade are going to a have a very difficult time being supported as something within provincial jurisdiction," Adams said.
"The court says now the provincial government has to prove that it has a purpose that isn't about restricting trade. And it just has to be a rational purpose."
Trevor Tombe, an associate professor of economics at the University of Calgary, sees it a little differently.
"The language in the ruling is quite broad and if there's some other public policy objective that a provincial government has in mind and restricting trade is really just an incidental outcome, then it's OK," he said.
He pointed out Alberta didn't put a tariff on or prohibit imports of B.C. wine, it simply told the provincial monopoly buyer to stop buying. In the case of limiting exports of refined fuel to B.C., he said, the government could argue it is simply pursuing a policy of enhancing value by relieving a glut of unprocessed oil from the oilsands for the good of its citizens.
He said the ruling is quite clear, however, in prohibiting a direct tariff on Alberta imports of B.C. products, as has been suggested by some observers of the dispute.
Last month Alberta suspended a two-week ban on B.C. wines.
Earlier this week, the Alberta government brought in Bill 12 which would give the province's energy minister the power to limit shipments of oil and gas exports to B.C., resulting in higher gas prices for B.C. drivers.
Both measures were introduced in retaliation to B.C.'s opposition to the Kinder Morgan's $7.4-billion pipeline project that would triple the capacity of the Trans Mountain pipeline which runs from outside Edmonton to a marine terminus in Burnaby, B.C.
In a unanimous decision, Canada's highest court rejected the "Free the Beer" case as it's become known, upholding the right of a province to impose provincial trade barriers in certain situations.
But part of the judgment reiterated what the Constitution already states: that provinces cannot impose trade restrictions with the sole intent of punishing other provinces.
That's where the fight over the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline expansion comes into it, especially in relation to Alberta's attempts to thwart opposition to the project by banning B.C. wines and restricting gas exports.
"The court specifically noted that provinces are not allowed to impose tariffs, or rules like tariffs, to punish other provinces. That's exactly what we've been saying in response to Alberta's proposed legislation," said David Eby.
Shea Coulson, a lawyer who represented five B.C. wineries as interveners in the "Free the Beer" case, says language in the decision suggests the court was thinking about the Trans Mountain dispute.
"The problem for [Alberta Premier Rachel Notley] is that she's given press conferences where she's saying explicitly 'I'm going to punish British Columbia.' And the court literally uses the word 'punish' to say that's something you can't do."
"The ruling today just furthers my confidence that a great deal of those explicit attempts to punish your neighbour through trade are going to a have a very difficult time being supported as something within provincial jurisdiction," Adams said.
"The court says now the provincial government has to prove that it has a purpose that isn't about restricting trade. And it just has to be a rational purpose."
Trevor Tombe, an associate professor of economics at the University of Calgary, sees it a little differently.
"The language in the ruling is quite broad and if there's some other public policy objective that a provincial government has in mind and restricting trade is really just an incidental outcome, then it's OK," he said.
He pointed out Alberta didn't put a tariff on or prohibit imports of B.C. wine, it simply told the provincial monopoly buyer to stop buying. In the case of limiting exports of refined fuel to B.C., he said, the government could argue it is simply pursuing a policy of enhancing value by relieving a glut of unprocessed oil from the oilsands for the good of its citizens.
He said the ruling is quite clear, however, in prohibiting a direct tariff on Alberta imports of B.C. products, as has been suggested by some observers of the dispute.
Last month Alberta suspended a two-week ban on B.C. wines.
Earlier this week, the Alberta government brought in Bill 12 which would give the province's energy minister the power to limit shipments of oil and gas exports to B.C., resulting in higher gas prices for B.C. drivers.
Both measures were introduced in retaliation to B.C.'s opposition to the Kinder Morgan's $7.4-billion pipeline project that would triple the capacity of the Trans Mountain pipeline which runs from outside Edmonton to a marine terminus in Burnaby, B.C.
With files from Susana da Silva and The Canadian Press
Notley's Bill 12 'shows bold leadership,' say Alberta oil and gas producers
Industry officials say it's unfortunate, but proposed law is necessary to protect Alberta's interests
Alberta's oil and gas producers are calling Bill 12 a regrettable but necessary step in the battle over the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.
Bill 12, titled Preserving Canada's Economic Prosperity Act, gives the Alberta government the ability to retaliate against B.C. over any delays to the expansion by driving up gas prices or restricting shipments of other energy products.
While industry officials support the move, they hope the legislation revealed by Alberta Premier Rachel Notley and Energy Minister Marg McCuaig-Boyd on Monday doesn't need to be put to work.
Mark Sholz, of the Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors, welcomes the proposed legislation.
"I think it's very prudent and shows bold leadership on the part of the premier, and it's certainly something we're supporting as a direction or a strategy."
Sholz said it's too bad it has come to this point, but everything possible needs to be done to ensure the pipeline expansion is built.
"We need to ensure this pipeline gets built, and I think additional pressure to the government of British Columbia is important and it's a very meaningful signal, an impactful signal from the Alberta government," he said.
"It's unfortunate that consumers are the ones that are going to have to pay for the irresponsible decisions and the foot dragging of the B.C. government."
![]()
Alberta Premier Rachel Notley, right, and Energy Minister Marg McCuaig-Boyd speak to reporters about Bill 12, which would give McCuaig-Boyd the power to limit energy shipments to B.C. (CBC) Tim McMillan, president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, said Alberta's hand was forced and producers are on board with Bill 12. But he noted that if the legislation is enacted, it wouldn't just hurt B.C.
"Any disruption would have further effects on our industry, and I think it comes down to short-term challenges for long-term gain. Our preference is that we don't have barriers getting our product to market, short or long term," he said.
"Any time there is a barrier getting the product to market, it hurts the economics in Western Canada and has an effect on jobs."
Gary Leach, president of the Explorers and Producers Association of Canada (EPAC), echoed McMillan's sentiments, and said he hopes the government handles any enactment of Bill 12 with "some skills" to avoid too much negative impact on Alberta's energy producers.
"But, I think at this point this impasse with British Columbia has to be brought to an end as quickly as possible. So our view is that it's regrettable it's come to this, but we would support the government at least acquiring the legal tools to defend Alberta's interests if necessary."
Another key industry group, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA), said in a statement that while it understands Bill 12 has become necessary, it's concerned the measures could have unintended consequences.
"We hope that the measures will not need to be implemented and that we are able to find a prompt resolution to the current impasse that reflects the needs and concerns of industry and other stakeholders," CEPA president Chris Bloomer said.
"This isn't something we want to use, but we're absolutely prepared to use it," she told the Calgary Eyeopener on Tuesday.
"We're not going to use it without consulting with our companies first — and also, we're not going to play our cards up front."
![]()
Alberta Energy Minister Margaret McCuaig-Boyd, left, and Premier Rachel Notley bring forward new legislation giving Alberta the power to control oil and gas resources. (Jason Franson/The Canadian Press) All three industry officials said they want Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to stay true to his word that legislation is forthcoming to make the project happen.
"The federal government has the authority on this pipeline and all international projects," Leach said.
"Yesterday [Sunday], they put out an action plan that we should be expecting in the days to come implementing legislation that clarifies and allows them to assert their authority to ensure this project can get built."
With files from Rachel Ward and the Calgary Eyeopener.
Bill 12, titled Preserving Canada's Economic Prosperity Act, gives the Alberta government the ability to retaliate against B.C. over any delays to the expansion by driving up gas prices or restricting shipments of other energy products.
While industry officials support the move, they hope the legislation revealed by Alberta Premier Rachel Notley and Energy Minister Marg McCuaig-Boyd on Monday doesn't need to be put to work.
Mark Sholz, of the Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors, welcomes the proposed legislation.
"I think it's very prudent and shows bold leadership on the part of the premier, and it's certainly something we're supporting as a direction or a strategy."
- Alberta unveils bill that could wreak havoc on B.C. gas prices in trade war
- Alberta willing to buy Trans Mountain pipeline if necessary, premier says
Sholz said it's too bad it has come to this point, but everything possible needs to be done to ensure the pipeline expansion is built.
"We need to ensure this pipeline gets built, and I think additional pressure to the government of British Columbia is important and it's a very meaningful signal, an impactful signal from the Alberta government," he said.
"It's unfortunate that consumers are the ones that are going to have to pay for the irresponsible decisions and the foot dragging of the B.C. government."
"Any disruption would have further effects on our industry, and I think it comes down to short-term challenges for long-term gain. Our preference is that we don't have barriers getting our product to market, short or long term," he said.
"Any time there is a barrier getting the product to market, it hurts the economics in Western Canada and has an effect on jobs."
'Regrettable it's come to this'
Gary Leach, president of the Explorers and Producers Association of Canada (EPAC), echoed McMillan's sentiments, and said he hopes the government handles any enactment of Bill 12 with "some skills" to avoid too much negative impact on Alberta's energy producers.
"But, I think at this point this impasse with British Columbia has to be brought to an end as quickly as possible. So our view is that it's regrettable it's come to this, but we would support the government at least acquiring the legal tools to defend Alberta's interests if necessary."
Another key industry group, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA), said in a statement that while it understands Bill 12 has become necessary, it's concerned the measures could have unintended consequences.
"We hope that the measures will not need to be implemented and that we are able to find a prompt resolution to the current impasse that reflects the needs and concerns of industry and other stakeholders," CEPA president Chris Bloomer said.
- Risky business: Trans Mountain twist pits shareholders against taxpayers
- Notley gains more federal backing as Trans Mountain deadlock wears on
"This isn't something we want to use, but we're absolutely prepared to use it," she told the Calgary Eyeopener on Tuesday.
"We're not going to use it without consulting with our companies first — and also, we're not going to play our cards up front."
"The federal government has the authority on this pipeline and all international projects," Leach said.
"Yesterday [Sunday], they put out an action plan that we should be expecting in the days to come implementing legislation that clarifies and allows them to assert their authority to ensure this project can get built."
With files from Rachel Ward and the Calgary Eyeopener.
About the Author
