In Canadian constitutional law, paragraph 91 (2) of Constitutional Act 1867 gives the federal government the power to legislate on matters related to trade and trade regulation. This authority is generally balanced by the provincial authority in the field of property law and civil rights in accordance with paragraph 92 (13) and the authority in “all matters of a local or private nature by nature” in accordance with paragraph 92 (16).
The provision on trade and exchange was first considered in detail in Citizen's Insurance v. Parsons (1881). The Privy Council singled out two concepts in this position. If it concerns “international and inter-provincial trade”, it falls under the inter-provincial concept of trade , and if it concerns “regulation of trade in general, affecting the interests of the entire Dominion,” then it falls under the concept of trade in general .
Content
Inter-Provincial Trade
Initially, the boundaries of inter-provincial trade were determined very narrowly by the Privy Council. In the case of the Trade Council, the Privy Council proposed that the right to trade and exchange be applied only as an auxiliary power to other valid federal powers. As a result, this principle was abandoned in the case of Toronto Electric Commissioners v. Snyder , but this power was still perceived in the narrow sense. In the case of the state against the Eastern Terminal Elevator (1925), it was established that the federal law regulating the trade in grain produced in the provinces, which was completely destined for export, did not fall under the concept of inter-provincial trade. For the same reasons, such sales schemes were recognized as invalid [1] .
Many federal laws were protested on the grounds that they regulated transactions that took place only within the province [2] .
After the appeals to the Privy Council were canceled, the interpretation of this right became wider. In Caloil v. Canada (1971), the Court retained a law prohibiting the movement of imported oil as a form of regulation of inter-provincial trade.
The most significant decision was the Response to the Agricultural Trade Act (1978), in which the Supreme Court retained a federal egg trading scheme that introduced quotas for various provinces. This was a very broad interpretation of inter-provincial trade, as it applied even to egg producers who did not export their products.
The court also examined the effect of provincial law on the power of trade and exchange. In Carnation v. Quebec Council on Agricultural Marketing, the Court ruled that provincial regulations that have a side effect on inter-provincial trade are legitimate. However, if a provincial scheme restricts free trade between provinces, then it will be protested [3] .
Trading in general
Trade was generally affected in the General Motors of Canada v. City National Leasing . The court listed five signs of a legitimate trade law in general. In this case, it was determined that during the study it is necessary to verify that the law is part of the regulatory scheme, that there is a body that controls this scheme, that the issue affects trade in general, that provinces cannot introduce such a scheme, and that the scheme is at risk if the province refuses to participation in it.
Trade regulation should generally be general and broad, and should not highlight markets for individual goods or industries. In Labatt Breweries v. Canada (1979), the Court ruled that regulating the composition of “weak beer” in the Food and Drug Administration Act was not legal and too narrow to regulate trade in general.
See also
- Trade Regulations - American Constitutional Equivalent.
Notes
- ↑ Reply on the trade in natural products (1937).
- ↑ Home Oil Distributors vs. Attorney General of British Columbia (1940)
- ↑ AG Manitoba v. Manitoba Association of Eggs and Poultry (1971)