Article content continued

I have been writing about this constitutional provision in relation to liquor laws in the national media since 2011. If you read the Calgary Herald or Financial Post, you may have noticed. Of course, it’s not just me. My colleague, Marni Soupcoff, has been doing the same for nearly the same period of time.

Add to this that during August 2015, a New Brunswick trial became the focus of the national media. Defendant Gerard Comeau had been fined for transporting liquor in excess of the personal exemption limit from Quebec to his home in New Brunswick. Partnering with lawyers Ian Blue and Arnold Schwisberg, the Canadian Constitution Foundation supported Comeau’s defence since the New Brunswick’s personal exemption limits violate the same free trade clause.

Stephen Harper, then our prime minister, expressed his dismay that such an impediment to the free flow of goods between the provinces existed. On the campaign trail, Liberal party Leader Justin Trudeau expressed much the same opinion. Further, each of the major editorial boards throughout Canada expressed their support for Comeau.

So how is it that Alberta’s new government did not realize that imposing a protectionist tax on beer from outside of the New West Partnership is unconstitutional?

Finance Minister Joe Ceci defended his plan to charge a higher mark-up on beer from outside of the New West Partnership in late November. “Our intent is to grow the brewery business in Alberta and to create jobs and to diversify the economy,” he told the CBC. Unfortunately for Ceci, intent doesn’t enter into it. But even if it did, it’s a bad argument.