About  Centre  Contact  Events  Links  News  Publications  Support

Boycott USA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA (TRIAL DIVISION)

Between:

I, Alan Rycroft, Administrative Assistant with the British Columbia Ferry Corporation, residing at 143 South Ridge Drive, Saltspring Island, British Columbia, B.C. V8K 1Y9, SWEAR THAT:

1. I filed an objection to the proposed expropriation of the Nanoose Sea-bed and participated in the public hearings which followed. As such I have direct knowledge and information of the evidence hereinafter deposed except where stated to be on the basis of information and belief in which case I believe it to be true.
   
   
2. I currently work for B.C. Ferries. I have previously worked extensively within the peace movement, both as a volunteer and in a professional capacity. I have developed extensive knowledge on issues of the safety of nuclear weapons capable and nuclear powered ships. My resumé is attached as Exhibit "A".
   
   
3. In 1991 and 1992 I was the chief lobbyist in a campaign to ban nuclear ships from Canadian waters. This campaign resulted in the following resolution being passed 51-1 by the B.C. Legislature on April 23, 1992.
   
   
4. I was in the gallery that day and both the governing New Democratic Party and opposition Liberals introduced me to the House.
   
   The Legislative Assembly of British Columbia declares British Columbia to be a nuclear weapons free zone; and
       
   The Legislative Assembly calls on the Government of Canada to conduct a full public environmental review of the danger involved by the presence of nuclear weapons and nuclear powered vessels in British Columbia’s harbours and waterways.
   
   
5. In the early 1990s I was a director of the Vancouver Island Peace Society ("VIPS") which at that time took the Federal government to court to attempt to force an environmental review of the practice of allowing nuclear capable and nuclear powered vessels into Canadian ports (the "VIPS Case")
   
   
6. Nanoose Bay, British Columbia, is the home of a torpedo testing range, known as the Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental Testing Range ("CFMETR"). CFMETR is used by Canada and its NATO allies to develop and test nuclear weapons systems and related technology.
   
   
7. A significant number of the ships which make use of the CFMETR facility are American, and many of these ships are capable of carrying nuclear weapons. Their purpose in visiting CFMETR is to train the crews to make use of such weapons and to develop propulsion and delivery systems for such weapons. As such Canadian cooperation with the U.S. military in such activities directly supports the use and threat of use of nuclear weapons.
   
   
8. On May 23, 1997 the provincial government canceled, on 90 days notice, the lease which allowed for the use of the Nanoose sea-bed by CFMETR. Negotiations between the federal and provincial governments ensued, resulting in an agreement in principle (the "Agreement in Principle").
   
   
9. However, negotiations subsequently broke down. I am advised and verily believe that the federal government stated that negotiations broke down due to attempts by the provincial government to use the lease as leverage in order to force the U.S. to sign a new Pacific Salmon Treaty. I am further advised and verily believe that the provincial government stated that negotiations had failed because of attempts by the federal government to allow nuclear weapons bearing ships into CFMETR, despite assurances in the Agreement in Principle to the contrary.
   
   
10. On May 22, 1999 the Minister of Public Works and Government Services issued a Notice of Intention under the Expropriation Act in respect of the sea-bed under CFMETR and adjacent areas. The Notice of Intention was published in the Canada Gazette, Vancouver Sun, Victoria Times Colonist and Nanaimo Daily News.
    
    
11. I am the Webmaster for the Victoria Peace Centre, and the Editor of a daily email news service, the Peace, Earth and Justice Lists, which keeps myself and several hundreds of others informed about Nanoose and other issues. [A description of the news service found on the Victoria Peace Centre's homepage is attached as Exhibit "B".]
    
    
12. I learned of the Notice of Intention through a variety of sources including e-mail messages, including messages sent by the applicant, the Society Promoting Environmental Conservation ("SPEC").
    
    
13. On June 21, 1999 I sent my letter of objection (dated June 20, 1999) by registered mail to the Honourable Alfonso Gagliano, the minister of Public Works and Government Services, and I attach a true copy as Exhibit "C".
    
    
14. In early July I learned from Norm Abbey, nuclear issues campaigner of SPEC, that a public hearing had been scheduled for July 19, 1999 through to July 30, 1999 in Nanaimo and August 3, 1999 to August 13, 1999 in Vancouver, and that Mr. Michael Goldie ("Goldie") had been appointed as the Hearing Officer. I was further informed by Mr. Abbey that objectors should contact Theresa Johannsen ("Johannsen"), the Hearing Registrar, to arrange a time to speak at the Hearings.
    
    
15. I contacted Johannsen on or before July 12, 1999 to book a time to make my presentation. At this time I was informed that I would receive only 15 minute minutes to present before Goldie. I took exception to this, as I knew that it would take longer than 15 minutes to cover in sufficient detail the various objections I intended to raise. However, I arranged to present at 3:45pm on July 19, 1999 in Nanaimo.
    
    
16. Soon thereafter, Johannsen phoned to inform me that my letter of objection had been received late, and that I therefore would not be allowed to present.
    
    
17. Johannsen called later the same day to say that I was back on and that the earlier problem had been due to a mistake. I reconfirmed orally that I was scheduled for 3:45 p.m. on July 19, 1999.
    
    
18. I was aware that many of the other objectors had received a registered letter notifying them of the Public Hearings. I had received no such letter, and had no written record of my scheduled presentation time. Given the confusion which had already occured, I decided to confirm the placement in writing and that same day (Thursday, July 15, 1999, at 10:15 am) I faxed a letter to Johannsen noting that I had not received either a registered letter nor any written confirmation of the scheduling for my presentation. I attach as Exhibit "D" a true copy of my July 15 fax.
    
    
19. In my letter of July 15, 1999, I also stated that I would make three (3) copies of approximately 800 pages of sworn affidavits accepted in the Federal Court in Vancouver Island Peace Society v Canada, and that I would bill the Hearing for the photocopy cost. I also stated that my lawyer would accompany me to the Hearing and speak to the legal issues that concerned me. I stated all this to be sure that the photocopy costs and my lawyer would be accepted by Goldie and paid for by the Federal Government.
    
    
20. Failing to get written confirmation by the end of the working day of my speaking time, or that the affidavit photocopies would be accepted, or that my lawyer could speak and would be compensated, I left a voicemail message for Johannsen at 4:50 pm on Thursday, July 15, reminding her that I was speaking the next Monday, July 19, and that I required written confirmation ASAP.
    
    
21. On July 16, 1999 my lawyer, Andrew Gage ("Gage"), faxed a letter to Johannsen notifying her that he was legal counsel for myself and one other objector. I attach a true copy of Mr. Gage’s letter as Exhibit "E". Gage indicated that wrote that I had serious objections to the procedures proposed by Goldie and asked for time at the beginning of the hearings to address my legal concerns about the Hearing procedures.
    
    
22. Finally, on Friday, July 16, 1999, at the conclusion of the working day, I received a fax from Johannsen at work confirming my scheduled presentation time, and enclosing a copy of the registered letter (and other background materials). This fax arrived at the office at 3:52p.m. and was received by me at 4:04p.m. In the fax Johannsen informed me that if I wished to participate in the hearing in person, I would be unable to have legal counsel present except to introduce me. Her letter also stated that the substantial cost of reproducing 800 pages of VIPS Case Affidavits might not be paid for by the Hearing. I attach a true copy of Johannsen’s fax and enclosed materials as Exhibit "F".
    
    
23. As I was scheduled to speak the following Monday at 3:45 p.m., after the weekend, I was unable to pursue these matters further with Johannsen. I decided I could not risk having to pay the substantial cost of reproducing the affidavit material, or of having proper legal representation during my Hearing presentation. Nor did I feel I could risk losing my opportunity to speak, if only for 15 minutes, given the history of my communications with Johannsen, by requesting a different time slot after these matters had been cleared up. As well, at my own expense, I had booked a day off work to attend the Hearings.
    
    
24. In the early afternoon of July 17, 1999 Gage, on my behalf, sent a copy of his written submissions on procedural issues to Johannsen by fax. These submissions raised three issues: a) the arbitrary 15 minute time limit; b) the inconvenience caused by not holding a hearing in Victoria; and c) the misleading and inadequate notice given to objectors. A true copy of Gage’s letter and enclosed submissions on procedure are attached as Exhibit "G".
    
    
25. On July 17, 1999 at 3:40 p.m. Johannsen sent a fax to Gage. In addition to confirming scheduling information, Johannsen’s fax responded to Gage’s July 16, 1999 letter (Exhibit "E", above) and passed on a statement from Goldie that he would not hear submissions on the question of the 15 minute scheduling limit, either at the start of the hearing or, apparently, at all. This fax also enclosed a copy of a letter sent to an unnamed objector in response to his complaints about the 15 minute limit. A true copy of the fax and enclosed correspondence is attached as Exhibit "H".
    
    
26. At 4:30 p.m. on July 17, 1999 Gage sent a further fax to Johannsen. In addition to responding to her questions regarding scheduling and other issues, Gage noted that Goldie’s letter to the unnamed objector did not address the issues raised in his submissions on procedure, and asked Goldie to reconsider his decision on this arbitrary 15-minute limit. A true copy of Gage’s second fax of July 17, 1999 is attached as Exhibit "I".
    
    
27. I am advised and verily believe that later in the day on July 17, 1999 Gage received a telephone call from Johannsen who explained that his procedural submissions had not been found on the fax machine until after she was sent the July 17, 1999 letter. However, I am further advised and verily believe that Gage received no further correspondence from Johannsen or Goldie in reference to his written submissions.
    
    
28. On July 18, 1999 I traveled to Nanaimo with my wife, Kealey Pringle (who was also scheduled to present an objection on behalf of the Victoria Peace Centre Society on July 19), and our two young children. We stayed overnight in Nanaimo and attended the hearings the next day.
    
    
29. At the hearing I saw a Hearing official give my wife a copy of the notes which formed the basis of Goldie's opening remarks. This 30-page document was in response to her simple and polite question of whether the Canadian Government was bound by Goldie's recommendations, a question which he refused to answer. Although a simple "yes" or "no" would have accurately answered her simple question, Goldie was uncooperative, evaded the question, and frustrated my wife. She felt intimidated by his rude, angry and unprofessional response. I attach as Exhibit "J" a true copy of this document.
    
    
30. Throughout the day I witnessed Goldie being rude and intimidating to every objector who I heard present, including myself.
    
    
31. In some cases, he would question a person's legitimate right to be heard, although all had been given timeslots, and the goal of the Hearing was to convey to the Federal Minister the nature of objections held to the proposed expropriation-- a goal best served by listening to objectors.
    
    
32. At the beginning of each presentation, Goldie would "summarize" the objector's letter of objection into a few "pigeon holes" and insist on a snap judgement to concur or amend his simplistic characterization of their concerns. There was no attempt to understand the presenters, but apparently a desire to categorize all objections into a few simple categories. In fact, Goldie at one point stated that a computer summation of reasons for objection would form a part of his report to the Federal Government.
    
    
33. I believe the effect of his questioning of credentials and motives, and his crude categorization of objections at the beginning of each presentation, was to intimidate and "throw off" the presenters, such that they were less effective speakers than they would have been had they been allowed to make their presentation unimpeded. Goldie interrupted speakers frequently, often rudely. His frequently harsh questions and judgements had the effect of chilling and intimidating many of the presenters.
    
    
34. As his arbitrary 15-minute speaking limit approached, he hurried the speakers along, urging them to rush to a conclusion and end. Many of the speakers felt obliged to skip part of their presentation and deviate from their carefully-prepared texts.
    
    
35. There was a lot of emotion in the hearing room on July 19, most of it negative as a result of the cattle-prodding ways of Goldie. Rather than encouraging objectors to make their best case, the effect of his combative attitude, words and actions, was to stifle many of the presenters, and cause them to stumble verbally and emotionally.
    
    
36. It did not seem as if Goldie was really interested in hearing us at all, but rather that he was more interested in breaking for lunch, ending at 4:00 p.m. precisely, and finishing the entire process as quickly as possible. The less said the better was the mood he set in the Hearing chamber.
    
    
37. I presented that afternoon as scheduled. A true copy of my written submissions are attached as Exhibit "K". I raised the fact that I had been denied the opportunity to have my lawyer present along with me. I stated: "I will briefly outline my legal concerns, without the aid of counsel. I want the record to note that I object to the silencing of either myself or my lawyer in this hearing. Both of us should have the right to speak." I went on to explain that Johanssen had faxed me: "If you speak on your own behalf counsel will not be heard other than to introduce you and advise you."
    
    
38. I also put on the record my objection to the, "arbitrary limit of 15 minutes to share the expertise I have gained over nine years in nuclear ship work."
    
    
39. Goldie initially reiterated his position that either I or my lawyer had to present, but not both. However, after lengthy debate he eventually agreed to have my lawyer present at a later date. I do not know whether this right, which I fought hard to have recognized, was offered to other objectors.
    
    
40. After agreeing that my lawyer could present Goldie attempted to prevent me from even referring to legal objections. Goldie stated that he would not hear my lawyer on any issues I referred to in my presentation. Since however, I wished to get on the record a list of the legal issues that were my personal concern, to ensure they could later be addressed by my lawyer, I proceeded with my planned text, which only outlined my procedural objections and substantive legal objections about the expropriation and the legality of certain activities at the Nanoose test range.
    
    
41. I also attempted to clarify whether I could submit some or all of the affidavit materials filed in the VIPS Case. I felt strongly that the information contained in them strongly illustrated the nature of my objections, and therefore thought they would add valuable information to the Hearing. I was involved in obtaining many of these same affidavits and wrote two of my own. The affidavits included expert testimony from many preeminently qualified persons concerning safety, environmental and public concern issues about nuclear ship visits to British Columbia. The affidavits included:    
    
    
    1. Affidavits on military affairs were submitted by Major General (ret.) Leonard Verne Johnson, Commander (ret.) Roger D.C. Sweeney, Project Ploughshares Researcher Bill Robinson and others.
       
       
    2. Speaking on public concern, affidavits from Provincial Liberal Leader Gordon Wilson, Victoria Member of Parliament John Brewin, Federal NDP Leader Audrey McLaughlin, Victoria Mayor David Turner, myself and others.
       
       
    3. Affidavits on public safety were submitted by world-renown Toronto radiation expert Dr. Rosalie Bertell, emergency physician Dr. Paul Rosenberg, Dr. Jan Christilaw, New Zealand's Dr. Robert E. White and others.
       
       
    4. Affidavits on environmental impact were submitted by Greenpeace International Campaigner John Mate, Georgia Strait Alliance Executive Director Laurie J. McBride, Haida Gwaii (Queen Charlottes) Chief Michael Nicoll Yahgulanaas, the widely-published Professor Frederick K. Knelman, University of Toronto Professor Eric Fawcett and others.
       
       
42. Goldie refused to answer my direct question on admitting the affidavit material, and instead indicated that he would rule on their admissibility after hearing from my lawyer on this subject.
    
    
43. Gage appeared on my behalf, and on the behalf of four other objectors, on July 27, 1999. I was not able to attend at that time but am advised and verily believe that Gage was able to present on both the procedural questions he had previously raised and on the more substantive issues. I attach as Exhibit "L" a copy of Gage’s written submissions to Goldie.
    
    
44. I am further advised and verily believe that Goldie declined to admit any of the affidavits filed in the VIPS case without reviewing them, on the grounds that he saw this as an attempt to bring in more objectors by the "back door". Indeed, he declined even to admit four affidavits which Gage had wished to make direct reference to in his submissions on my behalf. This seems inconsistent in that on the day that I presented, a number of objectors successfully filed documents which were not written by themselves or other objectors.
    
    
45. Gage further informs me that Goldie refused to hear many of the substantive legal arguments concerning the use of the test range and the authority of the federal government to expropriate provincial lands; Goldie stated that the Minister was free to seek legal advice from the Department of Justice, thereby addressing legal questions. I therefore do not feel that a fair hearing, even a brief one, was given to the procedural and substantive legal concerns I have surrounding the expropriation and the activities at the Nanoose test range.
    
    
46. On or around July 27, 1999 Goldie also announced that his office had discovered that due to a processing error over 500 objectors had not received copies of the registered notice which was to have been sent to all objectors as required by the Expropriation Act, which explained, for the first time, why I had not received the original letter by registered mail. Due to the late date it would not be possible to get these letters to the missed objectors in time for them to present in Nanaimo, although some might still be able to present in Vancouver (albeit with only a short time to prepare). Goldie announced that he would sit only a further two days to facilitate this process.
    
    
47. However, it is my belief that many of the objectors from Vancouver Island and the smaller islands to the west of Vancouver Island would in any case be unable to afford the additional time and expense of a trip to Vancouver, rather than to Nanaimo.
    
    
48. Furthermore, no Hearings were ever held in Victoria, as I had requested in my initial Letter of Objection. I believe this too significantly limited the number of objectors who were able to present, i.e. take a day off work and travel to another city to make a scant 15-minute presentation.
    
    
49. On August 12, 1999 I received a letter by registered mail headed "Amended Scheduling Information -- Notice to Objectors", a true copy of which I attach as Exhibit "M". This letter had arrived at the Fulford Harbour Post Office on August 2, 1999, but I was unable to pick it up for a number of days.
    
    
50. After considerable effort and persistence on my part I was able to make a 15 minute presentation to the Hearing Officer, and to have my lawyer make a further presentation on behalf of myself and 5 other objectors. I strongly believe that the numerous barriers and inconvenience which I faced may have prevented a large number of other objectors from making a presentation.
    
    
51. Few people have the stubborn persistence that I do, no matter their deeply-held objections to the proposed expropriation of the Nanoose test range. I spent nine years full time trying to stop nuclear ship visits to Canada. Taking my own case as an example, it appears that every opportunity to dissuade people from presenting was made by Hearings staff. Only the most seasoned of "fighters" would have withstood an assault like that imposed on myself in order to fully exercise their legal right of objection. All indications are that the Hearings were never intended by either the Federal Government or by Goldie to give a fair opportunity for objectors to be heard.

Victoria Peace Centre