OTTAWA—Gerard Comeau wasn’t the only one shaking his head when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Thursday there is no “constitutional guarantee of free trade” within Canada.

“Money’s more important than liberties, I guess,” said the 64-year-old retired linesman in an interview from Campbellton, N.B. where he was juggling calls from reporters.

Comeau’s bid to strike down the N.B. Liquor Control Act’s limits on cross-border beer shopping failed, but he became the champion of free-traders across Canada.

Now some of his supporters hope all the attention his case, and the social media campaign dubbed #freethebeer, brought to the issue will galvanize provincial and federal leaders to drop barriers they say add $50 billion to $130 billion in extra costs to goods and services that cross provincial borders.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the 1867 constitution did not impose “an absolute free trade regime within Canada.”

The judgment makes clear any decision to knock down interprovincial trade barriers would be a political one, not a judicially-imposed one.

It cited the “need to maintain balance” within the Canadian version of federalism, saying provinces are free to pass laws in a whole range of areas they control, as long as the law’s primary purpose is not aimed at blocking trade across provincial borders.

Any other interpretation, warned the court, could lead to a whole slew of laws being invalidated: environmental or public health regulations, agricultural controls on the production and distribution of eggs, dairy or poultry, for example, and “innumerable” other exercises of provincial jurisdiction.

Business leaders who had backed Comeau at the high court say the ruling was a “missed opportunity” to knock down Canada’s own protectionist barriers at a time when the country is trying to argue for freer trade globally.

Comeau was stopped in October 2012 after crossing the Quebec border with 14 cases of beer and three bottles of booze in his trunk.

The Mounties, trying to crack down on bootleggers, stung him with a $292 ticket for exceeding the province’s import limit of a dozen beers and a bottle of liquor.

On Thursday, Corinne Pohlmann, of the federation representing small businesses, said it’s now up to provinces to eliminate costly, excessive regulations as they agreed to do in the Canadian Free Trade Agreement, signed last year.

“We are calling the provinces to get their act together and break down the barriers, and ensure that real free trade is possible across Canada.”

Dan Paszkowski, president of the Canadian Vintners Association, said he was “extremely disappointed” in the decision.

“We are the only wine-producing country in the world that does not allow consumers to order wine from a different part of the country.”

Only B.C., Manitoba and Nova Scotia allow wineries to ship direct to consumers, he said.

He said a federal-provincial working group under the Canadian Free Trade Agreement is to report by July 1 on ways to lower provincial trade barriers in alcohol trade, and he hopes change for direct consumer delivery of wine products will come via that route.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Advocates such as lawyer Rob Cunningham of the Canadian Cancer Society, on the other hand, welcomed the high court’s reinforcement of provincial powers to regulate and tax harmful substances, such as tobacco, alcohol and soon, cannabis.

Lawyer Howard Anglin, of the Canadian Constitutional Foundation, which intervened at the high court in support of Comeau’s arguments, said it’s clear the provinces are reluctant to move.

Anglin believes the ruling actually provides an opportunity for a federal government or federal party leader to push to lower trade barriers, using the federal power to regulate trade and commerce.

The high court ruled there is “no constitutional guarantee of free trade” within Canada, but it did not say there is a requirement to impede it, Anglin said.

Freer trade between provinces could be a windfall for the provinces, said Anglin, who pointed to a senate committee report that accepted findings by Trevor Tombe and Lukas Albrecht.

They say interprovincial barriers cost each Canadian household about $7,500 a year.

Economist Brian Lee Crowley of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute said the high court “is always very keen to promote and protect Canadians’ rights in all kinds of social contexts,” but is very reluctant to protect their economic rights to exercise their profession, or freely sell their goods and services, and that prevents other Canadians from “benefitting from their efforts.”

What’s more, Crowley said, the timing “couldn’t be worse” with all the tensions in the pipeline dispute in the West and Alberta and B.C. “at each other’s throats.”

Comeau’s lawyer Ian Blue told CBC the ruling is at odds with “what the prime minister is trying to do for Canada in international forums and negotiating trade agreements.

“It’s very difficult for Canada to say that a foreign country should knock down its barriers when the foreign country can point and say, ‘In Canada, you have interprovincial trade barriers …. Why should we be any different?’ ”

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said his government will take time to study the ruling and look at the “ramifications of it.” He acknowledged there are “still a number of issues” to be pursued, but said the internal free trade deal is “a significant step forward towards full free trade within Canada.”