Beer, Oil and the Supreme Court

41 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering
Beer, Oil and the Supreme Court

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/scoc-decision-liquor-provinces-1.4625861

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled unanimously that provinces and territories have the constitutional right to restrict the importation of goods from each other, as long as the primary aim of the restriction is not to impede trade.....

Comeau's defence centred on section 121 of the Constitution Act, which states products from any province "shall … be admitted free into each of the other provinces." 

A 1921 Supreme Court decision interpreted that to mean the products only had to be free from tariffs, not from other barriers such as limits on quantity.

Comeau and others argued that that decision offered too narrow an interpretation, and that it led to the proliferation of interprovincial trade barriers.....

But the Supreme Court disagreed Thursday, ruling that section 121 does not impose absolute free trade across Canada.

The court said that section 121 prohibits laws restricting inter-provincial trade, but only where restricting trade is the laws' main purpose.

The court found that the primary purpose of New Brunswick's law was "to prohibit holding excessive quantities of liquor from supplies not managed by the province."....

The court was also concerned with the potential far-reaching implications of taking away any province's power to control what comes across its borders.

The court said it would undermine Canadian federalism and throw into jeopardy agricultural supply management schemes, public health-driven prohibitions and environmental controls.

Public health-driven prohibitions and environmental controls, are the basis of Horgan's reference case and the judges singled out both as valid provincial concerns and areas of jurisdiction.

The court said it would undermine Canadian federalism to take away any provinces power to control what comes across its borders

Horgan's just got a whole lot stronger. 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/scoc-decision-liquor-provinces-1.4625861

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled unanimously that provinces and territories have the constitutional right to restrict the importation of goods from each other, as long as the primary aim of the restriction is not to impede trade.....

Comeau's defence centred on section 121 of the Constitution Act, which states products from any province "shall … be admitted free into each of the other provinces." 

A 1921 Supreme Court decision interpreted that to mean the products only had to be free from tariffs, not from other barriers such as limits on quantity.

Comeau and others argued that that decision offered too narrow an interpretation, and that it led to the proliferation of interprovincial trade barriers.....

But the Supreme Court disagreed Thursday, ruling that section 121 does not impose absolute free trade across Canada.

The court said that section 121 prohibits laws restricting inter-provincial trade, but only where restricting trade is the laws' main purpose.

The court found that the primary purpose of New Brunswick's law was "to prohibit holding excessive quantities of liquor from supplies not managed by the province."....

The court was also concerned with the potential far-reaching implications of taking away any province's power to control what comes across its borders.

The court said it would undermine Canadian federalism and throw into jeopardy agricultural supply management schemes, public health-driven prohibitions and environmental controls.

Public health-driven prohibitions and environmental controls, are the basis of Horgan's reference case and the judges singled out both as valid provincial concerns and areas of jurisdiction.

The court said it would undermine Canadian federalism to take away any provinces power to control what comes across its borders

Horgan's just got a whole lot stronger. 

The word control is up for debate -- it does not mean prevent.

A reference case is always up for debate on applicability as well. In the case of provincially taxed items moved by non taxed transactions (individual buying and moving something across a border, especially something with high taxes like alcohol), they woudl not be the same as commercial movements for retail which would generate taxes to the recieving province or export which would not compete with that province's sales, the comparison is poor.

Authorities are helpful but not binding -- this is how law changes. Judges apply them by unpacking and comparing authorities (previous cases) and legal arguments. It is frequent that duelling authorities are unpacked based on the diffrences. It is not valid to take out of context a line you think helps your case and assume that it will hold up.

What is odd in the case you mention is that the judge does not even reference (in your quote at least) the issue of tax jurisdiction and local competition even though that is essential to trade barriers and as important as anything he cited. This issue would certianly complicate the case on two points -- it lowers the value of the reference and it reduces the credibility of the reference itself.

The other problem raised is that the Kinder Morgan line is an infrastructure project that is a link. The argument about how much oil goes down the line might not be entirely the same as regulating how much oil goes through it. This is a big problem since there is no history of regulating the volume of good traversing a province to export or to another. These examples are mostly wround the issue of making something available for sale in another province or allowing people of that province to import it themselves.

To me, the application of this example is thin -- even though the media would want to make the connection in order to get more play for the story.

NorthReport

This actually is a significant ruling and as BC’s Attorney General David Eby has stated, he was expecting because  he does not believe the Notley Trudeau axis attempts to punish BC are constitutional. Eby is one smart fellow, the future leader of the BC NDP and as well has discovered and exposed a massive money-laundering scheme in BC which may well be one of the main reasons housing prices have gone out of sight in this province. 

Thanks Pondering for starting this thread as it being discussed throughout the province at the present time and has given John Horgan’s attempt to protect BC’s Coast a large shot in the arm.

Unionist

Great thread, and great thread title, Pondering - thank you!

NorthReport

KM likes to shade the truth it appears

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4626497

Bacchus

So Alberta can now put in all those bans and restrictions against BC?

NorthReport

au contraire mon ami

NorthReport
NorthReport

Dp

 

NorthReport

That’s a switch, eh!

Now the truth is starting to come out.

Hundreds of business leaders urge BC NDP Premier John Horgan to continue his fight against the Kinder Morgan Pipeline

https://www.bnn.ca/hundreds-of-business-leaders-urge-b-c-s-horgan-to-keep-up-trans-mountain-fight-1.1061836 

NorthReport

Finally a day many First Nations and Environmentalists have been waiting for! 

Martin N.

The SCC has certainly let the fox out among the chickens with this ruling. The Feds have always appeared rather squeamish in enforcing federal jurisdiction on provincial protectionism. Maybe their legal opinions foretold of such a judgement.

Now that a breach has been made in their absolute authority, it behooves the Feds to use their singular ability to send the BC reference directly to the SCC rather than it wending its way through the judicial process for the next decade or so. If not, logic dictates more assaults on the federal jurisdiction in the name of everything but trade barriers.

Martin N.

NorthReport wrote:

Finally a day many First Nations and Environmentalists have been waiting for! 

And lawyers, don't forget the lawyers, lol.

Martin N.

NorthReport wrote:

That’s a switch, eh!

Now the truth is starting to come out.

Hundreds of business leaders urge BC NDP Premier John Horgan to continue his fight against the Kinder Morgan Pipeline

https://www.bnn.ca/hundreds-of-business-leaders-urge-b-c-s-horgan-to-keep-up-trans-mountain-fight-1.1061836 

Yeah, I think the issue is attracting more attention since the KM announcement as individuals put more thought into their position on the issue and make their positions known.

 

NorthReport

Did the earth move today? You can almost feel it in BC.

Shifting dynamics of a low-carbon future

https://www.ft.com/video/85d92c6c-1e03-42f0-8b57-dea9419b2b2e

NorthReport

Also today I wish to commend 2 people in particular (and I know there are others) that have led the fight here against the KM pipeline and they are epaulo13 and Unionist for a job well done. I know this battle is still far from over but we need to celebrate our achievements both big and small. 

voice of the damned

Bacchus wrote:

So Alberta can now put in all those bans and restrictions against BC?

I gather the ruling specifices that you can't block goods from another province if the purpose is to punish that province, but if it's protecting your own industries, environment etc, it's okay.

Which seems to me like a somewhat awkward tightrope act: If province A is just trying to protect its own economy, they can treat Province B like a foreign country and put in place measures that could inadvertantly damage their economy, but you have to avoid a trade war, because we're still supposed to be one big happy family.

Though from the articles I've read, this apparently is written directly into the constitution(ie. protectionism okay, but not punitive), so there might not be much point in complaining about it.

NorthReport

It has been very clear from the get go that Notley’s tactics have been an attempt to be punitive against BC. First with the wine nonsense and now the oil threat. And that is unconstitutional. Just go back and read her words. 

NorthReport
kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

[85]                          We begin with Mr. Comeau’s submission that the principle of federalism supports full economic integration. We cannot accept this submission. The federalism principle emphasizes balance and the ability of each level of government to achieve its goals in the exercise of its powers under ss. 91  and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 Full economic integration would “curtail the freedom of action — indeed, the sovereignty — of governments, especially at the provincial level”: K. Swinton, “Courting Our Way to Economic Integration: Judicial Review and the Canadian Economic Union” (1995), 25 Can. Bus. L.J. 280, at p. 291; see also D. Schneiderman, “Economic Citizenship and Deliberative Democracy: An Inquiry into Constitutional Limitations on Economic Regulation” (1995), 21 Queen’s L.J. 125, at p. 152. Reading s. 121 to require full economic integration would significantly undermine the shape of Canadian federalism, which is built upon regional diversity within a single nation: Reference re Secession of Quebec, at paras. 57-58; Canadian Western Bank, at para. 22. A key facet of this regional diversity is that the Canadian federation provides space to each province to regulate the economy in a manner that reflects local concerns.

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/17059/index.do

Protecting the coastline in an effort to limit the risks to the world class environment that a large part of the Salish Sea economy relies on would appear to be regulating in a manner that reflects local concerns. Burnaby's by-laws that the NEB says are irrelevant to how Kinder Morgan develops its property in Burnaby are likely also regulations that are of of local concern and they are enacted under provincial law. The NEB is a federal regualtory body and it seems under this decision it would not have the constitutional authority to overide the municipal building laws that all developers are required to follow even though those building regulations are some of the most restrictive in the Lower Mainland.

This decision is the most recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling, there is no higher authority on the issue. As for references to the Supreme Court over the current pipeline spat I personally think that the Court was sending clear messages to the various governments threatening to get into a legislation battle over the pipeline. When the PM of Canada is publically threatening to override provincial authority under the doctrine of "national interest" it is clear this case's obiter on cooperative federalism is instructive.

[82]                          For our purposes, it suffices to state that the federalism principle reminds us of the careful and complex balance of interests captured in constitutional texts. An interpretation that disregards regional autonomy is as problematic as an interpretation that underestimates the scope of the federal government’s jurisdiction. We agree with Professor Scott that “[t]he Canadian constitution cannot be understood if it is approached with some preconceived theory of what federalism is or should be”: F. R. Scott, “Centralization and Decentralization in Canadian Federalism” (1951), 29 Can Bar R. 1095, at p. 1095; see also P. W. Hogg and W. K. Wright, “Canadian Federalism, the Privy Council and the Supreme Court: Reflections on the Debate about Canadian Federalism” (2005), 38 U.B.C.L. Rev. 329, at p. 350.

[83]                          Thus, the federalism principle does not impose a particular vision of the economy that courts must apply. It does not allow a court to say “This would be good for the country, therefore we should interpret the Constitution to support it.” Instead, it posits a framework premised on jurisdictional balance that helps courts identify the range of economic mechanisms that are constitutionally acceptable. The question for a court is squarely constitutional compliance, not policy desirability: see, e.g., Reference re Securities Act, at para. 90; Operation Dismantle Inc. v. The Queen, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441, at pp. 471-72, per Wilson J.; Reference re Anti-Inflation Act, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 373, at pp. 424-25, per Laskin C.J. Similarly, the living tree doctrine is not an open invitation for litigants to ask a court to constitutionalize a specific policy outcome. It simply asks that courts be alert to evolutions in, for example, how we understand jurisdictional balance and the considerations that animate it.

 

NorthReport
NorthReport

Uh-oh. BC NDP Premier John Horgan has incured the wrath of the Trudeau Liberals front guard, the Toronto Star.

What spiteful, derogatory, mean-spirited and divisive commentary! 

How B.C. blocking the Kinder Morgan pipeline does damage to us all

Besides the possible constitutional crisis, halting the oil pipeline also damages Canada’s reputation for foreign investment, which is essential to Ontario’s tech boom, writes David Olive.

https://www.thestar.com/business/opinion/2018/04/19/how-bc-blocking-the-...

 

 

Martin N.

The instant constitutional experts predicting 'wins' for their own opinions should be aware of the Law of Unintended Consequences. As R. Burns wrote: "The best laid plans of mice and men aft gang aglay".

 

NorthReport

Have to have a good chuckle at Canada's small-minded, the sky is falling, anytime they don't get their way, business community.

This article is practically useless and has glaring omissions - can you think of them?

Ottawa's plan B for Trans Mountain could be to find someone else to build it

The Trudeau government believes it could find others to build the pipeline if Kinder Morgan walks away

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/kinder-morgan-pipeline-consortium-1.4627476

NorthReport

Perhaps businesses, and there are a growing number of them, that don't want more tanker traffic endeangering the BC Coast & the Salish Sea, might want to consider boycotting media advetising with those media outlets, who keep up their incessant "this KM pipeline expansion has to be built at any cost", eh! They should start the boycott with the Toronto Star.

NorthReport

Looks like the Trudeau & Notley Oil & Gas Axis might have blown it!

Supreme Court’s cross-border alcohol ruling could hit Alberta in pipeline dispute

 

It’s hard at first blush to see the link between the free movement of beer and the shipment of oil – but Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling on out-of-province alcohol includes wording that could hit retaliatory measures Alberta has aimed at B.C. in the continuing battle over the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

In its unanimous ruling in the case of Gérard Comeau, a New Brunswick man who was fined for bringing a large quantity of Quebec beers and spirits back home, the court upheld the New Brunswick restriction on possessing alcoholic beverages bought out of province.

But in doing so, the Supreme Court also gave a nuanced explanation that said while New Brunswick’s restriction is valid, no trade barriers between provinces should be created with the “primary purpose” of affecting flow of goods across boundaries. A rule designed to “enable public supervision of the production, movement, sale, and use of alcohol” is fine, but “a law that in essence and purpose impedes cross-border trade cannot be rendered constitutional.”

The wording might matter in the pipeline dispute, because Alberta introduced legislation this week that would allow the province to restrict the flow of its oil and refined petroleum products such as gasoline or diesel. British Columbia is not mentioned in the bill and the written aim is to get the best pricing for Alberta’s fossil-fuel products.

However, Premier Rachel Notley’s government has also indicated the bill’s political purpose is to push back against “extreme and illegal actions on the part of the B.C. government” in the fight over the $7.4-billion pipeline expansion.

On Thursday, the B.C. Attorney-General immediately called the Supreme Court ruling a boost to his province’s position that it would be unconstitutional for Alberta to restrict the flow of oil or gasoline with the primary purpose of putting pressure on B.C.

“[It’s] exactly what we have been saying in response to Alberta’s proposed legislation – that it’s unconstitutional, that they are not allowed to use their oil resources to punish other provinces,” David Eby said.

Likewise, Simon Fraser University political scientist Andrew Heard – whose work focuses on the constitution – noted that the intent of Alberta’s bill matters, even if the wording does not mention punishing B.C. “Many public statements by Premier Notley and other cabinet ministers have made that intention clear,” he added.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/alberta/article-supreme-courts-cr...

NorthReport

Oops

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

This case clearly says that provinces can enact laws that impact on interprovincial trade if they are for a proper local interest. The bylaws of the City of Burnaby are passed pusuant to BC provincial law. It seems to me that given the clear language in this case the City has every right to enforce its bylaws when Kinder Morgan wants to do major construction to expand its operations. I can't see how this decision leaves any room for a federal agenacy like the NEB to claim it can override them especially when its seems the rational is merely an difference in economic visions for the country.

NorthReport

Don't like the ruling. Well then let's attack the Court, and the Country. I'm a sore loser so I want to take my ball and go home. Yikes!

http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/terence-corcoran-its-not-just-...

 

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The word control is up for debate -- it does not mean prevent.

A reference case is always up for debate on applicability as well. In the case of provincially taxed items moved by non taxed transactions (individual buying and moving something across a border, especially something with high taxes like alcohol), they woudl not be the same as commercial movements for retail which would generate taxes to the recieving province or export which would not compete with that province's sales, the comparison is poor.

To me, the application of this example is thin -- even though the media would want to make the connection in order to get more play for the story.

The point of reference I am seeing has nothing to do with trade.

The court said it would undermine Canadian federalism and throw into jeopardy agricultural supply management schemes, public health-driven prohibitions and environmental controls.

Horgan's reference case is based on provincial rights regarding protecting public health and the environment. Two areas of jurisdiction singled out by the justices as areas of provincial control that would be threatened by a ruling overturning liquor laws. 

The pipeline obviously poses a possible environment threat to public health and safety. No studies have been released proving that bitumen can be cleaned up. 

I've been arguing that forcing this pipeline through BC is what would cause a constitutional crisis. Quebec has already spoken up for provincial rights. 

I'm not saying it's a shoe in. It does suggest that the Supreme Court agrees that the environment is a valid area of provincial control. 

Canada is a model of cooperative federalism. It isn't a matter of which environmental laws apply, they all do. A project requires approval from both levels of government. 

6079_Smith_W

I'm not sure this is the same principle, as Kinder Morgan is about export from Canada, not bringing something into B.C.'s market.

I'm more interested in what this is actually about. On the one hand it is good that provinces can control this, both to protect their tax base, and their revenue. It is especially important here in SK now that the field is being opened up to more private liquor stores. They still have to buy from the province. It would be a major hit if, for example, Sobeys or Superstore could just import all their Big Rock straight from the brewer in Alberta.

On the other hand, it is unfortunate how this gets in the way of wineries direct selling out of province. There really should be some exception for that, because right now some of them have said they will just continue to break the law.

 

 

 

voice of the damned

6079_Smith_W wrote:
On the other hand, it is unfortunate how this gets in the way of wineries direct selling out of province. There really should be some exception for that, because right now some of them have said they will just continue to break the law.

I'm not quite sure I see the logic behind the "because" there. People should get an exemption from a law on the books, simply because they threaten to break it?  

lagatta4

No, of course not. Because this particular provision is absurd, and damaging to local wineries.

6079_Smith_W

No, and that isn't what I said.

The case wasn't actually brought by them, and it wasn't specifically about them, but rather an individual bringing goods in. I say "because"  because there is still a problem that should be resolved, just as there is in a lot of other areas, like marijuana sales.

They should get an exemption because it isn't quite the same as someone running over the border just to get a cut rate on booze, or a retail outlet trying to cut out the province. It is a question of buying a specialty product, and I think there is a fair case to be made that different rules should apply.

After all, it wasn't that M. Comeau wasn't allowed to bring beer over the border; he tried to take over the allowable limit. In the case of wineries, they can't direct sell.

As a comparison, I can go to another country and buy things that aren't approved for sale in Canada so long as it isn't something that is restricted. I can even order it in across the border. That isn't legally the case with alcohol in Canada.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/provinces-keep-cork-o...

6079_Smith_W

Though it does relate in a way, because before Alberta and SK came up with this idea for attacking B.C. they had their own beer war over license plates:

http://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/varcoe-mixing-beer-and-polit...

Maybe that's where they got the idea.

Pondering

It seems to me that beer or wine crossing provincial borders would never be a threat to the health and safety of Canadians nor a threat to the environment of any province. I can understand the justices referring to supply management systems as an example but not health, safety and the environment. Why include that on a judgement pertaining to beer going over a provincial border?

True this didn't pertain to a federal/provincial dispute. It still singled out health and safety and the environment as areas under provincial protection. 

Alberta has suggested that Horgan's gambit is unconstitutional because he is seeking an indirect way to stop the pipeline which he cannot do because it is a federal jurisdiction. That Horgan knew he couldn't stop it. 

That won't fly because Horgan's genuine reason for stopping it is to protect the environment and health and safety.  The root of his reference question to the Supreme Court is does the province have a right to protect the health and safety of citizens and the environment when the federal government has approved a project. 

My guess is that as long as the province is sincere the answer will be yes the province has the right to reject a project that has the potential to threaten the health and safety of citizens and/or the environment. 

Concerning free trade amongst provinces, I have read there is a deal in the works. There is no reason this should have to be decided on a federal level. It is up to those concerned to demand that politicians work it out. 

6079_Smith_W

It does impact a province which takes in revenue from alcohol sales, especially one which is next door to a jurisdiction where booze is cheaper.

And it is even more important in a province where alcohol is a provincial monopoly, which all retailers must buy from, like Saskatchewan.

Removing that power could potentially break that monopoly and lead to privatization, so for the most part this is a very good decision.

The health question? Who knows? Maybe it is a recognition the power of jurisdictions to declare themselves dry. It isn't relevant on a provincial level, but municipalities and First Nations have done it. Or maybe they were just laying out the scope of their decision in anticipation of future questions.

Regarding the wine question, Ontario allows residents to order any wine through LCBO:

https://hellolcbo.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1370/~/transporting-bevera...

 

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering we disagree on the general rules of interpretation of law or even how law is interpreted here. Application is not as simple as you suggest and differences in cases as significant as these are always relevant given the types of control being discussed. I am not siding with the Federal Government position but I disagree with your legal analysis. The fact that there is shared powers of regulation actually diminish the provinces claim to use elements that it can share the regulation of to prevent the construction of the line. Essentially there is a valid debate on just how far the province can go in regulation and it likely extemely limited when it comes to the power to reject the project wholesale on constitutional grounds. First Nations en-route have a much stronger claim.

The areas of regulation are in fact potential shared powers as the power to determine if the project can go ahead is a Federal power. You also ignored the point that reference cases on not binding -- they are authorities. If they were binding you would have two issues, one, that law would become static. If that had been the cases the reference you mention could not have existed at all. The second is that the relevance of cases is not just a matter of consideration of a sentence in a decision but of context. This is critical since the context, including the parties, has bearing on the kinds of issues argued. Judges apply the law to determine the validity of the points argued. They can introduce new ones but the principle of adversarial law is that advocates for each side present their arguments. You cannot dismiss differences in context to the extent of comparing individuals crossing a border with a controlled substance to store it and consume it locally with a regulated export running through another province by, not destined for that province. You can certainly use these cases and I am sure this one can be argued but it is not a determination of a result. The lawyers and judges determing these cases are not robots and they do not use a single authority as a determination of a case. They weigh all arguments.

I would be very pessimistic about the potential to stop this pipeline if I felt that the position against relied on this case or the arguments made in the media or by people here about its applicability.

Pondering the second issue I take with your response is your mingling of merit arguments with jurisdictional ones. This is in fact one of the most common errors in legal argument made by non lawyers. During the time I practiced as a paralegal this caused many to lose.

The Liberals are making a mistake in the discharge of their jurisdiction in ways that are not relevant to whether they have that authority.

The strongest legal arugment on the table is that of the Indigenous First Nations. Opponents of the pipeline would be well-advised to support their efforts.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

It seems to me that beer or wine crossing provincial borders would never be a threat to the health and safety of Canadians nor a threat to the environment of any province. I can understand the justices referring to supply management systems as an example but not health, safety and the environment. Why include that on a judgement pertaining to beer going over a provincial border?

True this didn't pertain to a federal/provincial dispute. It still singled out health and safety and the environment as areas under provincial protection. 

Alberta has suggested that Horgan's gambit is unconstitutional because he is seeking an indirect way to stop the pipeline which he cannot do because it is a federal jurisdiction. That Horgan knew he couldn't stop it. 

That won't fly because Horgan's genuine reason for stopping it is to protect the environment and health and safety.  The root of his reference question to the Supreme Court is does the province have a right to protect the health and safety of citizens and the environment when the federal government has approved a project. 

My guess is that as long as the province is sincere the answer will be yes the province has the right to reject a project that has the potential to threaten the health and safety of citizens and/or the environment. 

Concerning free trade amongst provinces, I have read there is a deal in the works. There is no reason this should have to be decided on a federal level. It is up to those concerned to demand that politicians work it out. 

The problem with this argument is that interprovincial links are exclusively federal jusidiction (even if there is a role for the province in regulation). Health and safety are shared. A Federal provincial disagreement on these will not cede the field to the province entirely.

6079_Smith_W

I don't know about down east, but when you cross the border on the #1 into Manitoba there is a big sign telling you to report in Virden if you have tobacco:

https://www.gov.mb.ca/finance/taxation/taxes/tobacco.html

 

Pondering

I am not at all familiar with law so this is not a legal analysis. I'm not saying that BC will necessarily win in court. I do think a reference question will be taken very seriously and I think in general the Supreme Court favors cooperative federalism. 

The question will be something like IF there is a credible environmental threat what right does the province have to demand proof of safety before allowing construction?

I don't see the Supreme Court saying that if the federal government wants to endanger citizens the provincial government has to allow it. 

Notley says Canada is broken if we can't force a pipeline through BC. I think it is just the opposite. I think trying to force a pipeline through BC would break Canada as surely as trying to force one through Quebec. Canada is a voluntary nation. We have the history of the Quebec separatist movement underlining the divisibility of our nation rather than a civil war determining its unification. Provinces are much larger than states. 

If the federal government decided that since Manitoba is sparsely populated and central it would be a handy garbage dump for refuse from the rest of Canada would Manitoba have no choice if it's in the national interest?

I'm not even a tiny bit familiar with constitution law. I'm speaking from a political perspective. We have a living constitution. The Supreme Court Justices seem to go out of their collective way to write judgements in which the reasoning can be understood by lay people. 

I don't know the wording of the question Horgan will put to the Supreme Court but he did say it would apply to bitumen being transported by rail as well as by pipeline. He isn't going to ask "can I stop the pipeline?" It will be more along the lines of "can I make regulations pertaining to the transport of dangerous goods across the province?" or something to that effect. All Horgan is looking for is a very general "yes you have a right to have some conditions". 

I think it's very unlikely that the justices will say the province has no recourse. If they do it will come with a very long explanation that will take some time to write. It won't be decided by May 31st. 

The question will be presented April 30th. I think the nature of the question will decide Kinder Morgan if they haven't already decided.