It's time to stop bickering and resolve the real issues at Nanoose:
Before badly damaging relations by moving to expropriate, Ottawa
should sit down with B.C. and explore key questions of Canadian
values and foreign policy.
B.C. hearings into the federal expropriation of the Nanoose test
range end early next week, which means time is running out.
This would be a good occasion for the feds and the province to act
like responsible adults, for one to approach the other and say: `Hey
buddy, let's work this out.'
The two parties could meet over frothy Frappuccinos at Starbucks and
lay cards on the table.
They'd certainly agree on these straightforward facts.
- B.C. is legal owner of the subsea test range.
- Its citizens, through their legislature, in 1972 stated they do not
want nuclear material on B.C. soil.
- Ottawa, morally speaking, has obligations to the U.S. in the area
of defence. Canada relies heavily on the U.S. for protection, and
benefits economically from American defence contracts.
- Canada gave a commitment to the Americans that they can continue
using Nanoose, which provides ideal seabed turf for testing torpedoes.
Over coffee, the two parties would probably agree off the top that
expropriation is too blunt an instrument for two parties with an
ongoing relationship to deploy.
They might decide they are simply deadlocked. That it would help to
have a third party to mediate or arbitrate a solution.
ADR Chambers, a private firm with a Vancouver office, offers retired
judges for just such missions, eminent chaps like Ontario's former
chief justice Charles Dubin and former Supreme Court judge Willard
Estey.
Or the two might decide the issue is bigger than access to a single
military testing site in B.C. and that mediation and arbitration
would be premature at this point.
After all, Canadian values are at play -- for example, do Canadians
sanction the use of nuclear-powered equipment against wishes of the
local citizenry, the people who would suffer from any accident.
It involves Canada's posture toward an imperious American policy --
U.S. refusal to say whether its subs and ships test or carry nuclear
material.
Is this an appropriate policy between two nations professing to be
best friends, especially given that the Americans are using our land,
not their own, to test.
It would be useful to explore such matters before trying to reach a
consensus.
And there are ways to do this. Progressive Conservative leader Joe
Clark has suggested hearings by an all-party parliamentary committee.
It could be empowered to call witnesses, including from the U.S.
defence establishment. And to propose recommendations toward a
solution.
Or, a full parliamentary debate could be undertaken.
That would give B.C. voters a chance to hear where the seven Liberal
MPs representing B.C. stand on the issue. They've been remarkably
silent to date.
Or the Senate could get involved. Aren't these the folks who are
supposed to do the sober second thought stuff?
A Senate committee might be co-chaired by one Liberal senator from
B.C. and one Tory. (Reformers and NDPers are excluded from the upper
chamber; never having formed government, they aren't yet part of the
patronage machine.)
Off the top, a deal could be struck to allow the status quo to
prevail at Nanoose until a solution is reached.
That would prevent a rushed or forced outcome. At the same time,
political forces would keep pressure on those studying the situation
to come to a timely resolution.
This sit-down-and-talk approach makes more sense than
expropriation -- scheduled to take effect by Sept. 20 -- because it
allows for the airing of the fundamental issues involved.
And, importantly, it would prevent negative fallout from any action
imposed against the will of one of the two parties.
This is key. Because in Canada, when a province feels it has been
wronged by Ottawa, the episode gets recorded in a mythical ``regional
ledger book.''
And that record never, ever goes away.
Two examples of such entries in the western ledger book: the National
Energy Program, imposed against Alberta's will, and the CF-18
contract, lost by Manitoba despite a better bid than the Quebec
winners.
Of course, Quebec has a voluminous ledger book of its own.
This is precisely what would happen if the feds continue to ignore
the province's will and barrel on with unilateral expropriation of
the Nanoose seabed territory.
The action will become another historic illustration of the
contemptuous way Ottawa treats the West.
Expropriation is tantamount to one of the two fellows at Starbucks
standing up, throwing his frap in the other guy's face and walking
out the door -- an outrageous incident that would not be soon
forgotten.
! NANOOSE CONVERSION CAMPAIGN, 2150 Maple Street Vancouver BC V6J 3T3
! www.user.dccnet.com/lagasse/Nuclear_Free_Georgia_Strait/nanoose.html
! Contact: Norman Abbey (604)738-7963 Tel/Fax or (604)351-1416
! Email: iabbey@alternatives.com