My name is Joseph Makhan Dubé. I have been a resident of
Nanaimo for the
past 28 years. I am a member of the Canadian Public Health Association,
a
member of Physicians for Global Survival and a member of the Canadian
Association of Physicians for the Environment. I have served as a
representative of the Canadian Public Health Association on a Federal
Joint
Ministerial Panel on The Selection of Toxic Substances for Priority
Consideration in the Environment.
However, I speak for none of these associations officially. I am here
to
present my own personal views. I approach this issue as an important
public
health issue.
The reluctance of the Defence Departments of the USA and Canada to confirm
or deny that nuclear warheads or nuclear-powered warships or submarines
are
operating in the Nanoose area is enough for me to conclude that there
is
the potential for the escape of radiation and radioactive material
into the
area. This may be on a minor or a major scale, as a result of human
error.
We have been reminded of the ever-present element of human error in
the
recent escape of waste that was, mercifully, not yet contaminated by
deadly
viruses, from a high security laboratory in Winnipeg for the storage
of
rare and extremely virulent viruses for which there is no cure. Then
there
was the embarrassing BC Hydro test that was designed to put our minds
at
rest regarding possible problems with Y2K, and the Bell Canada breakdown
in
Ontario, with its spin-off of repercussions, all of which were not
supposed
to happen. (See Appendix 1)
Quite apart from the potential accidental escape of radiation and
radioactive materials from Nanoose, one has to be mindful of the fact
that
the presumed or suspected presence of nuclear vessels and war heads
at
Nanoose makes it a target for attack by the very nations we are preparing
to defend ourselves against. As such the Nanoose base as presently
conceived is a potential threat to the life and sustainable well-being
of
the people on Vancouver Island and beyond. In any plan to preserve
the
health and safety of the population on mid-Vancouver island, the scenario
of an attaack on nuclear warships and the resulting contamination of
the
island with various degrees of radiation and radioactive materials
must be
addressed.
Already there are plans afoot to mitigate the effects of earthquakes
in
this area, as it has been established that we are on a dangerous fault
line
geologically.
One might tend to play down the probabilty of such disasters, and belittle
the consequences. But as far as nuclear warfare or a nuclear accident
is
concerned, we can do no better than quote from the Krever Commission
of
Inquiry into the Blood Scandal in Canada: "In matters of public health
and
safety, there is often a need to act in the absence of complete
information; the more severe the potential effect, the lower the threshold
should be for taking action."
There should be no need to re-iterate that as far as nuclear explosions
are
concerned, and the resulting radioactive damage, there is no treatment,
inspite of an optimistic forecast from the Nanaimo Regional General
Hospital. There is only prevention. In my e-mail submission I drew
attention to a special report in the New England Journal of Medicine
of
April 30, 1998 entitled: "Accidental Nuclear War - A Post Cold War
Assessment." In it the medical experts estimate, conservatively, that
an
accidental intermediate-sized launch from a single enemy submarine
would
result in the deaths of 6.8 million persons from firestorms in 8 US
cities.
Millions more would probably be exposed to potentially lethal radiation
from fall-out. The article recommends all measures to prevent such
a
disaster. (See Appendix 2, Special Report on Accidental Nuclear War,
New
England Journal of Medicine, April 30, 1998)
Dr. Mary Wynne Ashford has already spoken to this Hearing of a study
on the
damage to human health from a possible nuclear explosion at the Esquimault
Naval Base on this island. I will not repeat what she has said.
The ownership of the sea bed is central at present. For me, the use
to
which the base and its facilites would be put is of greater importance.
The
issue of harvesting BC salmon has no relevance to the issue under
consideration. What I am addressing is the safe and sustainable use
of the
Nanoose base area for the benefit of the citizens of this country.
This
issue stands on its own intrinsic merit. Attaching any conditions relating
to salmon harvesting is out-of-place and serves only to confuse the
issue.
I believe in a strong central federal government for Canada but there
must
be a high degree of accountability to the people of Canada, especially
when
there is a potential threat to the lives of Canadian citizens and to
the
long-term sustainability of the ecological systems.
If the Federal Government is expropriating the Nanoose sea-bed in order
to
allow the testing of nuclear warheads there, I stand unequivocally
opposed
to such expropriation.
Appendix 1
Submission by J. M. Dubé
Tuesday July 13, 1999
In only two days last week, I noted the following:
1. "To eliminate human error is an unrealistic expectation." This was
the
comment made by a spokesperson for the Canadian Science Centre for
Human
and Animal Health in Manitoba, commenting on the escape of water from
a
system designed to store deadly viruses. (CBC The National)
2. "It's not the computers we have to worry about. It's the people."
Terry
Milewski, CBC, reporting on BC Hydro's embarrassing pre-Y2K trial run
of
its computer systems. (CBC The National)
Thursday July 15, 1999
3. News item: Chairperson of the Canadian Blood Services, resigns. Her
resignation was prompted by a human error that allowed blood that was
screened by a flawed test to be distributed and used in transfusions.
(CBC
The National)
4. News item: Toronto phone system in disarray because of a fire. People
were stuck for 45 minutes in an elevator at the CN Tower. Five Japanese
tourists had to be taken to hospital. Computer back-up systems designed
to
take over in the event of such an emergency failed. (CBC The National)
5. We have a news report of the accidental erasure of the tapes of the
evidence collected by the Manitoba Commission that held hearings from
people affected by the disastrous flood. (CBC Radio One)
Submission to the Nanoose ExpropriationNanaimo July 28, 1999
From Vilma Dubé, 3986 Hammond Bay Rd.,Nanaimo, BC V9T 3E6
The grounds on which I object to the action of the Government of Canada
to
expropriate the sea-bed at Nanoose have been covered by previous objectors.
They are, in the main, ethical, moral and religious, based on my opposition
to having my country participate in joint action with the United States
in
preparing for any war which will be fought with nuclear weapons. It
is my
understanding that this action of expropriation is to facilitate the
on-going use of Nanoose Bay as a theatre for testing delivery systems
for
weapons of mass destruction. I am aware that the United States will
not
confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons on board their submarines.
For me as a responsible citizen, this is not good enough. I am dismayed
that my government , flying in the face of widespread public opinion
all
across the country, finds it acceptable. This attitude represents an
extra-ordinary reversal of policy that has made Canada a moral force
to be
reckoned with. In fact, in 1978, Pierre Trudeau said at the United
Nations:
"We are thus not only the first country in the world with the capability
to
produce nuclear weapons that chose not to do so, we are also the first
nuclear armed country to have chosen to divest itself of nuclear weapons."
(quoted in Canadian Nuclear Weapons by Dr. John Clearwater 1998 The
Untold
Story of Canada's Cold War Arsenal) Sadly, we have had ample evidence,
especially In recent times, e.g. with the NATO bombing in Kosovo, that
our
political leaders will dance to any tune played by our powerful neighbour
to the south. Hence I cannot in good conscience sit back and not do
what I
can to stop the expropriation.
As I sat here yesterday and heard Mr. David Wright QC speak of
riparian
rights, a memory of an incident that took place in 1991 was triggered.
I
wish to speak briefly about it. As a supporter of the Nanoose Conversion
Campaign, I have a sign, which I will leave with you as an Exhibit,
which
warns people in the bay, where I live and have lived for the past 28
years,
of the presence of a nuclear-powered and possibly armed submarine in
the
waters. On receiving a call from the coordinator of the action, I hang
this
sign in a prominent place on my property, which overlooks the Strait
of
Georgia. Having been notified of the presence of a foreign possibly
nuclear-armed submarine in our bay, I duly put out my sign. I am sorry
I
cannot be more specific about the date. At the time a 19-year-old nephew
of
mine was staying with me while attending Malaspina University-College.
At
breakfast he said to me: "Last night I was up at 2 a.m. and noticed
a
bright light through the window. When I looked out I noticed that a
vessel
at sea had a bright searchlight beamed on our house. This lasted for
a few
minutes and then stopped. What is going on Auntie?" he asked, adding
in a
solicitous tone, " Are you the object of surveillance?" I assured him
that
such was not the case and made light of it. No one wants a paranoid
19-year-old. However, I was disturbed. All I have are questions. Why
was my
house singled out?
Should I have been worried?
Who knows?
The point is that no one should be subjected to that kind of harrassment.
And what of my riparian rights? Had they been violated?
J.M.Dube
______________________________________