|
|
Avant de passer à la question de savoir si la pollution causée par l'immersion de substances dans les eaux de la mer, y compris celles situées à l'intérieur d'une province, possède l'unicité ou l'indivisibilité requise pour relever de la théorie de l'intérêt national justifiant l'exercice de la compétence en matière de paix, d'ordre et de bon gouvernement, il conviendrait de réitérer l'opinion que trois membres de cette Cour ont exprimée, dans l'arrêt Interprovincial Co‑operatives Ltd., précité, sur la compétence fédérale en matière de pollution des cours d'eau interprovinciaux, en raison de l'importance particulière que lui a accordée le procureur général du Canada.
|
|
|
36. Before turning to the question whether the pollution caused by the dumping of substances in marine waters, including those within a province, has the required singleness or indivisibility to fall within the national concern doctrine of the peace, order and good government power, some further reference should be made to the opinion expressed by three members of this Court in Interprovincial Co‑operatives Ltd., supra, concerning federal jurisdiction with respect to the pollution of interprovincial rivers, because of the particular reliance placed on it by the Attorney General of Canada. That case concerned the validity of The Fishermen's Assistance and Polluters' Liability Act of Manitoba, which created a statutory liability for damage caused to fisheries in the waters of the province by a contaminant discharged without lawful excuse into waters outside the province and carried by them into waters in the province. The Act further provided that it was not a lawful excuse for the discharge of a contaminant "that the discharge of the contaminant was permitted by the appropriate regulatory authority having jurisdiction at the place where the discharge occurred, if that regulatory authority did not also have jurisdiction at the place where the contaminant caused damage to the fishery." An action was brought for damage caused to fisheries in Manitoba by mercury discharged into waters in Saskatchewan and Ontario and carried by the natural flow of those waters into waters in Manitoba. Pigeon J., with whom Martland and Beetz JJ. concurred, held that it was beyond the legislative competence of the province to create a statutory right of action for damage caused in the province by acts outside of the province, just as it was beyond the jurisdiction of a province to authorize acts in the province which caused damage in another province. Observing that "Here, we are faced with a pollution problem that is not really local in scope but truly interprovincial" (p. 514), Pigeon J. held that control of the pollution of interprovincial rivers fell within the residuary jurisdiction of Parliament under the peace, order and good government power. Because of the nature of the Manitoba legislation and the facts of the case, I think it must be assumed, as submitted by the respondent, that in referring to the pollution of interprovincial rivers Pigeon J. had in mind pollution that crossed provincial boundaries. Moreover, the opinion that there was federal juri
|
