I am grateful for this opportunity to present my objections to the
intended
expropriation of the Nanoose Bay seabed by the Federal Government.
I would
like to expand on the points I made in my letter dated June 12, 1999.
I
will show how this expropriation will negatively affect myself.
I wish to begin by stating that my profession is as a systemFs-oriented
therapist and mediator. As such I know that the way power is
shared or
abused does affect relationships, not only in marriages, but also in
families, businesses, and countries.
The process of resorting to expropriation: As a result of failed
negotiations regarding the continued lease of Nanoose Bay, the Federal
Government is attempting to expropriate the property in question.
In this
case I believe that such a use of power is abusive. We live in
a democratic
state, not an authoritarian or autocratic state. Negotiations
had failed to
that date, but had not ceased. Expropriation is a use of power, amounting
to
seizure. What kind of precedent does this set? It means
that any time the
Federal Government does not get what it wants it can move in and take
over
any piece of property in Canada. What does this do to the power-sharing
model that is the basis of Canadian confederation? It destroys
it. How
does this affect me? It threatens the very structure of Canadian
confederation, and so the security that makes my life {in its present
form-
possible. What will this do to the future of lease agreements
between the
Federal and Provincial levels of government, knowing that when leases
expire
the Federal government can then move to expropriation? Threaten
such
leases. How will this help us get along with each other?
It will seriously
damage our relationship. My conclusion? This act of expropriation
will add
fuel to the fire of separatist sentiments, not only in Quebec, but
also in
this province. If either province were to separate from Canada
this would
affect my life negatively. Even if separation does not occur,
the damaged
relationships and the reduced role of power sharing between the Federal
and
Provincial governments will add to the instability of our country,
not only
economically, but politically as well. Moving to expropriation
destroys a
well-established due process where-by two partyFs work through their
differences and arrive at a mutually beneficial solution. Distrust,
not
co-operation, fear, not understanding, are the consequences of taking
this
route. Given that this expropriation is a precedent, if this
process is
allowed to continue the result may very well be greatly escalated tensions
and misunderstandings. Canada, as I know it, is threatened.
My future is
at stake.
Exceptions to the above: I believe there are times when coercive power
must
be used. Is this such a situation? I understand that the
primary reason
for Canada to be taking this drastic measure, one that sets what I
believe
to be a dangerous precedent, is so that Canada can honour an international
agreement and provide a weapons testing site for the Canadian and U.S.
navyFs. If this international agreement were about Canada respecting
universal human rights, or about conducting itself in such a way that
negatively affects the well-being of its neighbours (such as controlling
air
pollution), then I would agree that all measures should be taken, including
expropriation, to honour such agreements. The safety of humans
is primary.
In addition, I believe that property can be forced from the ownership
of one
province to the federal government in the event of emergency (e.g.
War
Measures Act being proclaimed in the midst of a declared war).
Nothing of
the sort is present in this situation. If the expropriation were
unsuccessful no human lives would be endangered. Thus the means
test for
invoking an exception to the rule (of avoiding the use of coercive
power)
fails.
Indeed, transferring the title of Nanoose Bay to the Federal Government
is
not in the interest of public health and safety: The site is used by
nuclear
powered and (potentially) nuclear-arms capable vessels. Canada
is a
non-nuclear nation: it has banished nuclear bombs from its territory,
joining the growing number of nations in the world who recognize that
the
use of weapons of mass destruction is immoral, destructive, and unethical.
The World Court has declared nuclear weapons to be contrary to human
security. The U.S. navy refuses to guarantee its ships do not
carry these
illegal weapons. In addition to the weapons, a number of their
vessels are
nuclear powered. While this is not against international or Canadian
law,
the risk of nuclear radiation is present. It is a well-known
fact that
reactors do sometimes fail, leaking their radiation into the environment.
As such they pose a health hazard to the public. This risk increases
in
reactors installed in vessels that can collide, as submarines have
been
known to do. The Canadian military has recently completed a survey
stating
that the level of preparedness of Nanoose to handle a nuclear emergency
is
inadequate. Thus, I conclude, it is not in the interest of the safety
of the
public to permit such vessels to travel in this province. In
the event of
an accident, radioactive materials would be released into the air and
water.
No agency or person can make such a guarantee of safety, short of an
outright ban. At this time the Federal Government is not willing
to ban
nuclear energy (propulsion or bombs) from this site. By preventing
such
vessels from entering the area this danger would be eliminated.
Thus, it is
not in the best interest of Canadians living in this area to allow
the base
to be used by such vessels. My health and safety are jeopardised.
Conclusion: The Canadian government has elected to take this drastic
measure
not because human lives are in danger, but because it wishes to assist
in
aiding the arms race {something that is a direct threat to humans and
the
planet. The process it has chosen to use is itself coercive.
As such it
destroys trust and co-operation, both of which are needed in a country
that
has our system of government. This measure moves us closer to
an
authoritarian structure, threatening the stable environment which makes
our
lives as good as they are. In a few words, the act of expropriation
endangers our stable system of governance as well as my health and
safety.
For the above reasons I am at risk to be hurt, and so am completely
opposed
to this expropriation.
Submitted by Ian Gartshore, 2-380 Westwood Rd., Nanaimo, B.C. V9R 6S5
e-mail: shore@nisa.net