We’re pretty certain the authors of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms didn’t have the right to pollute, at will, in mind when they penned the iconic document.
Irving Pulp and Paper intends to launch a Charter challenge claiming that the 15 charges of illegal dumping into the St. John River levied against it by the federal government in December 2016 are unconstitutional, CBC New Brunswick reports.
Irving Pulp and Paper was charged for violating the federal Fisheries Act by dumping harmful substances into the St. John River between June 2014 and August 2016.
The company has plead not guilty and, in a motion filed with New Brunswick’s Provincial Court on Aug. 29, 2017, served notice that it will launch a Charter challenge alleging the “acute lethality test” — a pollution test used across Canada for decades — is unconstitutional.
“I’m wondering why not just comply with the law?” our Fundy Baykeeper, Matt Abbott, told the CBC when asked about the court case.
“There almost seems to be a claim here by Irving that they have the freedom to pollute. I don’t think that’s the case. And they seem to think they should only face consequences once someone has been able to prove conclusively that a harm has occurred.”
The acute lethality test involves placing live fish in a tank of pure pulp mill effluent for 96 hours. If more than 50 per cent of the fish die, the effluent can be considered a ‘deleterious substance’ and is prohibited from entering the natural environment.
Speaking with our team in Fredericton, Abbott said: “The point here is pollution prevention. We know that certain substances are dangerous and have a good chance of causing harm. I am glad, and I think Canadians also expect, that we have proactive legislation to keep dangerous substances out of our natural ecosystems, out of our fish and wildlife, and keep them from potentially ending up on our dinner plates.”
Because Irving has been found guilty of polluting before, it could face a minimum penalty of $3 million in this case, which is set for court on Oct. 19.
The August court filing says Irving will argue that the federal government acted outside of its authority by charging the company, and that the charges are “overbroad and vague.”
“I’m left wondering what the point of this constitutional challenge is,” Abbott says. “Why not comply with the law? Why not take this as an opportunity to learn from a mistake, improve your pollution prevention systems, and likely pay the fine?”
Our Fundy Baykeeper, based in St. Andrews, and team in Fredericton will bring you more on this story as it develops.