I am here today - not on behalf of our city council, but as an individual
elected representative in
my community - to express my profound objection to this unprecedented
move by the federal
government, to expropriate the seabed at Nanoose Bay.
I should tell you up front. I am not a lawyer. I am not
an expert in constitutional or civil law.
And so, unfortunately, my comments may not always fit neatly into the
carefully circumscribed legal
terms of reference that you are bound by in your position. And
I think that is truly unfortunate,
because there are so many philosophical, community and environmental
perspectives that will
ultimately be lost in the political move to take this land from the
people of British Columbia.
But I feel it is my responsibility to remind you of those issues nonetheless,
because those are the
qualities which are important to the people who live in this community,
and who are ultimately
affected by this historic decision.
There are four main areas of discussion I wish to address in my presentation:
1) The constitutional and political implications of federal
expropriation.
2) The necessity for expropriation.
3) The environmental issues and impacts of expropriation.
4) The contempt of the British Columbia legislature shown
by expropriation.
1) CONSTITUTIONAL/POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS:
The first point I would like to make, is that this expropriation measure
serves to reverse the terms
upon which British Columbia entered the Canadian federation.
I am not a legal expert, but I do know
that when my province entered confederation, we did so under the terms
of an agreement, that certain
transfers of land and legal authority would take place.
First among the terms of confederation was the transfer of certain federal
lands to the province of
British Columbia “in perpetuity”, as a condition of entry into the
Canadian federation. The Supreme
Court of Canada has already ruled in 1984 that the seabed of Georgia
Strait legally belongs to the
province.
It must first be mentioned that I understand and appreciate the legal
order of government in
Canada. I know that the first order of government is the federal
government, and that the
provincial order of government assumes a secondary role under our constitution.
And so I cede the
point that, technically, the federal government has the legal right
to take this land as their own.
However, you will undoubtedly concede that no law is formed in a vacuum.
Every law is ultimately
subject to the social and political will of the Canadian people.
Every lawmaker and legal expert
must realize that a law which is not recognized by the people of this
country as legitimate, will
not soon enjoy any credibility in the legal system.
The point I am trying to make is not one of narrow legal definitions,
but is much broader in scope.
Put simply, the people of this province have enthusiastically endorsed
our position within
confederation - as a net financial contributor to the federal tax system
- based upon a basic
understanding between governments.
First among those understandings is the basic division of federal and
provincial powers. By taking
this unprecedented action of expropriating some 150 square kilometers
of provincially-owned seabed,
the federal government is sending an unmistakeable message to the people
of British Columbia. That
message is: “Agree with our agenda, or we will take what we want!”
Provincial interests don’t even enter into the mindset of federal cabinet
ministers like David
Anderson and Art Eggleton. Their only motivation, in my considered
opinion, is to grab the land and
embarrass the B.C. government at the same time. In this way,
they can cover up the abysmal record
of the federal government in exercising environmental stewardship over
the disputed properties, and
ensure that noone is able to monitor the effects of federal mismanagement,
in perpetuity.
A case in point is the underwater munitions dump on the bottom of Georgia
Strait. By expropriating
the seabed, the federal government makes it impossible for the province
to ensure proper monitoring
and stewardship of this potential environmental hazard.
2) EXPROPRIATION IS UNNECESSARY:
Put in the simplest terms, the expropriation of the Nanoose seabed is
fundamentally unnecessary.
And, if the legal advice I have received in six years as a municipal
councillor is any indication,
expropriation is outlined in civil law as a legal mechanism of “last
resort” by a government body,
which has made every “reasonable effort” to negotiate terms with a
landowner, for use of their
property.
There are two fundamental reasons for my objection on these grounds,
Mr. Chairman. First of all, it
is not at all clear that the federal government has negotiated in “good
faith” with the province of
British Columbia on this matter. In fact, I would submit to you
that the federal government -
through the political direction of Ministers Anderson and Eggleton
- have abrogated their
responsibility to reach a reasonable settlement with the province of
British Columbia.
On what grounds do I make my allegation? The answer is contained
within the context of public
statements made by federal Ministers Eggleton and Anderson on this
issue. On the one hand, Defence
Minister Eggleton has stated in Parliament, that the United States
Navy has never transported
nuclear weapons into the CFMETR test range at Nanoose.
If, in fact, the United States government has already agreed not to
transport nuclear weapon systems
in Canadian territory, there is no legal, moral or intellectual
reason for the Canadian government
to deny this primary request of the British Columbia government...
which is to disallow these
nuclear weapon systems on our territory.
Secondly, federal Minister Anderson has stated on CBC Radio that United
States military policy
dictates that the U.S. military cannot “confirm or deny” the presence
of nuclear weapon systems on
the vessels which use Canadian waters, under the current bilateral
agreement.
So the question remains... how can the British Columbia government assure
its citizens that the use
of it’s property by the federal government and United States military
will not compromise the health
and safety of our citizens, if the United States will not confirm or
deny the presence of nuclear
weapons on their vessels? The answer is... they simply
cannot.
On the one hand, the federal government will not confirm whether the
U.S. has brought nuclear
weapons into Canadian territory. On the other hand, they say
there are no nuclear weapons present
on British Columbia territory. Which version of the federal government
are we to believe?
If there are truly no nuclear weapons present on American vessels, then
the federal government has
no legitimate reason to deny the province of British Columbia’s request.
If there are nuclear
weapons present in Canadian waters, this is a violation of British
Columbia legislature policy. Can
this truly be seen as acting in “good faith” on the part of the federal
government?
3) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
In describing the activities which take place on the Nanoose test range,
the federal government
takes pains to point out that no nuclear weapons testing takes place
at CFMETR. Of course this is
true. We’d all be suffering from radiation sickness if it were
not.
However, this does not mean that nuclear armed missiles on nuclear powered
American submarines do
not visit the range. After all... the American policy is to “neither
confirm nor deny” the presence
of these weapons aboard any American vessel. And the Canadian
government agrees with this policy.
In addition, there is another disturbing trend that occurs on a daily
basis, which noone recognizes
as a potential public hazard. When federal officials escort the
media and public on a tour of the
base and show them surface-to-water torpedo demonstrations, do they
ever tell the public what these
systems are really intended for?
The torpedo systems tested at CFMETR are designed to intercept a drone
which sends out electronic
signatures imitating nuclear submarines. How do I know this?
I spent a week there a few years ago,
filming a documentary on the activities of the Nanoose base.
What is the significance of this fact? If the Nanoose base is
being used to train military
personnel to intercept and destroy nuclear submarines, we are training
them to create an underwater
nuclear holocaust in Canadian waters.
If only one of these torpedos struck its mark in a real conflict, the
entire ecosystem of the
Georgia Strait would be devastated for generations. First, the
sub’s nuclear reactor would rupture
in the middle of Georgia Strait. Then, who can say what would
happen to the “unconfirmed” nuclear
weapon systems on board?
By refusing to negotiate in good faith with the province, the federal
government is placing me and
every British Columbian at an unacceptable risk of environmental contamination
from these
activities.
While the federal government assures us that every effort is being made
to protect Canadians’
health, they cannot even guarantee us that American military vessels
in our waters will not carry
deadly nuclear weapons on board.
In addition, the federal goverrnment has shown it cannot properly contain
a nuclear ‘accident’. To
illistrate this fact, I provide you with a copy of a National
Post article from July 5th, whose
headline states, “Canadian navy bases fail nuclear readiness
tests - Civilians at risk: Equipment
failures cited in defence report”
While the report showed that CFMETR performed the best of four facilities
tested, the base showed an
“excellent” score in only 7 of 48 categories. In fact, the base
could not perform more than
“satisfactory” in 35 of 48 test areas. The base showed an unsatisfactory
rating in some 6
categories.
The Post article goes on to state that, “After testing how the bases
responded to a simulated
radiation leak from a visiting ship, the chief of marine staff said
in evaluation reports that the
bases were all unsatisfactory in some areas.” When it comes to
the possibility of a nuclear
‘accident’,this represents an unacceptable risk to the people of B.C.
4) CONTEMPT FOR THE B.C. LEGISLATURE:
The proposed act of expropriation by the federal government is in direct
conflict with a resolution
of the British Columbia Legislature - endorsed overwhelmingly by both
provincial New Democrats and
Liberals - which states that no nuclear weapons be allowed on B.C.
territory.
In point of fact, the federal government’s own negotiators agreed to
the ‘no-nukes’ provision, and
signed a declaration to that effect. Only after federal politicians
Anderson and Eggleton became
involved, did the deal fall apart.
In my view, this abandonment of British Columbia’s strategic interests
by our federal Liberal and
Reform British Columbia MP’s, represents nothing more than a ‘sell-out’
of British Columbia’s
interests on the altar of partisan politics.
I for one, am ashamed of the federal Reform and Liberal caucuses in
British Columbia. Their
inability to put aside partisan politics and advocate for fair and
impartial treatment on behalf of
their constituents is unforgivable, in my view. The decision
by these members to ignore the
legitimate interests of British Columbians has, in my view, given rise
to this expropriation
action. If they were really serving the interests of their electors,
instead of playing politics
with this issue, the entire action would be unnecessary.
For example: Where is Bill Gilmour, the Reform MP for Nanaimo
Alberni, whose constituents are most
affected by this action? He is not on the list of objectors to
the expropriation, although he has
been quoted in the local press as being opposed to it. Why is
he not representing his constituents
at these hearings and making these views known in the one circumstance
which could affect the
outcome of this action?
CONCLUSION:
I cannot emphasize enough to you, Mr. Chair, that this hearing is not
just about a simple
expropriation of land by one governmental over another. The symbolism
and constitutional
ramifications of this action resonate far beyond the rarified air of
this hearing room.
There is no question in the minds of the vast majority of British Columbians,
that this
expropriation will not stand, if it is decreed in law. It will
only serve to open a gaping sore in
federal-provincial relations, which will never heal until these lands
are returned to the province.
Please... keep this in the forefront of your mind when you make your
report to the federal
government. The future of all province’s constitutional property
rights hang in the balance. Thank
you.
Chris Bradshaw,
Councillor, City of Parksville
#6 - 493 Pioneer Crescent,
Parksville, B.C. V9P 1V2
Tel.: (250) 248-5931
Fax: (250) 248-5928
e-mail: redcat@nanaimo.ark.com
Subject: Nanoose Expropriation Hearings
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 10:34:20 -0700
From: Chris Bradshaw / Lynn Osborn <redcat@nanaimo.ark.com>
To:
PM Jean
Chretien <pmo@pm.gc.ca>, MP Alphonse Gagliano <Gagliano.A@parl.gc.ca>,
MP Art
Eggleton <Eggleton.A@parl.gc.ca>,
MP Lloyd
Axworthy <Axworthy.L@parl.gc.ca>
CC:
Denise
and / or Roger Lagassé <roger_lagasse@dccnet.com>
Dear Sir,
My name is Chris Bradshaw. I am an elected city councillor in
Parksville, B.C. - just five miles
down the road from Nanoose Bay. I appeared at the hearings in
Nanaimo, on the proposed
expropriation of the Nanoose seabed. I have to tell you that
I have severe reservations about Mr.
Goldie's ability to accurately reflect the submissions at the hearings,
based upon my attendance in
Nanaimo.
>From my first-hand experience, along with published media reports of
the hearings, I have found that
Mr. Goldie has acted in an obstructive and often disrespectful manner
to many of the objectors at
the hearings. One woman was nearly brought to tears by his constant,
rude interruptions of her
submission. I myself was interrupted several times by Mr. Goldie,
whose interjections seem designed
to disrupt the flow of the presentations and intimidate the objectors
in their remarks.
I personally was left with the distinct impression that my remarks may
not even be included in his
report to the minister, because of some interjections he made during
the course of the hearings. He
has also been quoted in the local press as saying he will not include
certain submissions or
portions of submissions in his report.
This is unacceptable, in my considered opinion. While Mr. Goldie
may be a retired judge, it should
be noted that these hearings are not the Supreme Court, where strict
rules of evidence apply. Every
Canadian who holds an objection to this unprecedented expropriation
deserves to be treated equally
and fairly by the hearings, and I believe we are not being treated
fairly or equitably in this case.
And so I am forwarding to you a copy of my submission to the hearings,
so that you may see
first-hand some of the real objections by Canadians to this action
by the federal government. I
look forward to your early response in this matter. My address
and phone number appear at the end
of the submission.
Sincerely,
Chris Bradshaw
City Councillor, City of Parksville, B.C.