Never doubted it.     
      
   But it was still interesting to watch the usual Conservative crowd cheering   
   for an NDP leader in Alberta and a Liberal one in Ottawa.    (^ ▽ ^)       
      
   While section 121 provides for freedom of movement of goods and services   
   between provinces, section 92(A) gives a whole lot of authority for the   
   *province* to make laws concerning those goods or services:   
      
   (4) In each province, the legislature may make laws in relation to the raising   
   of money by any mode or system of taxation in respect of   
      
   (a) non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province and   
   the primary production therefrom, and   
      
   (b) sites and facilities in the province for the generation of electrical   
   energy and the production therefrom,   
      
   whether or not such production is exported in whole or in part from the   
   province, but such laws may not authorize or provide for taxation that   
   differentiates between production exported to another part of Canada and   
   production not exported from the    
   province.   
      
   And then there's the legislation that the province shares with the feds on the   
   environment:   
      
   3.2.4  GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE   
      
   3.2.4  GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE   
      
   Means of addressing the problem of climate change might be grouped into two   
   broad categories:   
   - those that seek to limit greenhouse gas emissions from specific industries   
   or other identifiable sources, and   
   - those that establish an overarching strategy or regime to motivate people to   
   make choices that result in reduced emissions.     
      
   With regard to the first category, provinces have jurisdiction to regulate   
   most types of buildings, businesses, industries and intraprovincial   
   transportation, and therefore they also have jurisdiction to control the   
   greenhouse gas emissions related to    
   these matters.   
      
   While the federal government has jurisdiction over certain industries, as   
   noted earlier in this paper, its jurisdiction to regulate the emission of   
   greenhouse gases is based in its power to regulate toxic substances as an   
   aspect of criminal law.   
      
   And nobody sees the correlation between today's ruling on inter-provincial   
   beer and inter-provincial oil as clearly as this writer from the rightwing   
   Toronto Star:   
   ________________   
      
   CALGARY—A Supreme Court of Canada ruling on bringing beer from Quebec into   
   New Brunswick has implications for the trade war between Alberta and B.C. over   
   the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, experts said Thursday.   
      
   The court seemed to be addressing the issue in its decision when it noted that   
   while some trade barriers can be allowed in some circumstances, those designed   
   to punish another province or to protect a local industry would not be   
   permissible, they said.   
      
   The decision protects provincial liquor monopolies by finding that New   
   Brunswick had the right to fine Gerard Comeau for buying alcohol in Quebec and   
   transporting it over the border, said Howard Anglin, executive director of the   
   Canadian Constitution    
   Foundation.   
      
   But the part of its decision that talks about punitive trade barriers could   
   likely be interpreted to apply to Alberta’s recent threat to restrict oil   
   and fuel shipments to B.C. and its previous short-lived restriction on buying   
   B.C. wine, he said, both    
   designed to pressure B.C. into dropping its opposition to the pipeline.   
      
   “It certainly would limit the short-lived wine ban that Alberta   
   instituted,” said Anglin. “It could potentially limit its ability to   
   restrict the flow of oil. It’s certainly possible.”   
      
   Language in the decision suggests the court was thinking about the Trans   
   Mountain dispute, said Shea Coulson, a lawyer who represented five B.C.   
   wineries as intervenors in the Comeau case.   
      
   “I think the judgment goes directly to those sorts of issues,” he said in   
   an interview. “And they’re probably unconstitutional. That’s my view.”   
      
   But Trevor Tombe, an associate professor of economics at the University of   
   Calgary, disagreed.   
      
   “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.   
      
   Coulson said the Supreme Court’s interpretation has implications for many   
   trade laws, including those that permit direct shipping of wine to consumers   
   in Ontario but not in B.C.   
      
   Anglin agreed, noting the decision implies that it will be acceptable to ban   
   importation of recreational marijuana from other provinces when it becomes   
   legal later this year.   
      
   “If the province can justify restricting the importation of marijuana from   
   another province on a provincial ground like health or safety, it seems like   
   they will be able to,” he said.   
   [- - - ]   
      
   There it is - 'health and safety' trumps  (yuck!) the desire for profits from   
   exports.   
   And BC has no shortage of research and government reports of how a spill from   
   an oil tanker would affect health and safety of hundreds of thousands of   
   people along the coast of BC - and Washington.   
      
   Keep it in the ground, Rachel . . . . it's not like you don't have   
   alternatives to oil extraction.  You just want the easy way out for the   
   American shareholders of Enbridge - and you want re-election.  Personally, I   
   don't think Jason Kenney would be any    
   worse for BC on this issue.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)