Friday, April 13, 2018

2 Federal Liberal governments interfere with British Columbia environment: Non-Nuclear free Nanoose Bay and now Kinder Morgan

Amazing, or is it a only a coincidence, that it was Jean Chretien's Liberals who stole Nanoose Bay from British Columbians coastal waters and now Justin Trudeau's Liberals doing it all over again.

Two 'products' with the potential to demolish the pristine waters of British Columbia:

Nuclear powered vessels equipped with nuclear weapons, are banned.

There's been enough proof created of the damage caused by crude oil tankers.  It only takes one major spill to ruin the environment.    We're still waiting for the chlorine tankers to start leaking.

Howe Sound and Malaspina Strait

Second edition: Ottawa torpedoes B.C. over Kinder Morgan Pipeline?

Is it there a requirement that British Columbia provide the clean-up equipment to protect our coast from any spill that happen directly or in-directly from vessels carrying Kinder Morgan commodities; and further?  Will the cost to British Columbia be in the same range as the Kinder Morgan's Shareholders having to fork over $7.4 Billion to build the pipeline?  Would British Columbia go after Kinder Morgan for the $7.4 Billion in clean-up costs? 

Will the oil containment booms encircling oil tankers sufficient enough to contain a major leak from their dock at Westbridge in Burnaby?   What steps have been taken to stop petroleum products from being deposited below Kinder Morgan hired vessels at their Westbridge facility?  Is there a rubber mat down there to catch the dilbits?

Ottawa torpedoes B.C. over Nanoose Bay

There's anger in British Columbia as the federal government began procedures to expropriate a torpedo-testing facility on Vancouver Island.

This is the first time in Canadian history that Ottawa has moved to expropriate provincial land over the objections of a provincial government.

The disagreement has little to do with the torpedoes the Americans are firing and a lot to do with the dispute over salmon fishing between Canada and the U.S.
Nanoose Bay is used by both Canadian and U.S. warships. Premier Glen Clark wanted the testing range at Nanoose Bay as a bargaining lever in talks with the United States over salmon. Now Ottawa has decided to override provincial objections and proceed with the expropriation.

Clark also wanted a guarantee that no nuclear warheads would enter B.C. waters. Ottawa has now refused to give that commitment. "It was at the last minute they came back and said they couldn't agree to this, no nuclear warheads," said Clark. "Well, fair enough, but they can't come back and say we're the ones who changed the rules."

Fisheries Minister David Anderson said the government had no choice but to begin expropriation procedures because it has to keep the naval testing base open at all costs.

"The steps we are taking today are regrettable. We would have far preferred a negotiated solution and a renewed lease by that method... but that proved impossible." 



THE NANOOSE BAY TEST RANGE: OWNERSHIP AND EXPROPRIATION   Prepared by: Mollie Dunsmuir Law and Government Division 22 June 1999

The Minister of National Defence explained the expropriation as follows:

The Government of Canada cannot permit itself to be put in breach of its international obligations. As such I have reluctantly asked the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to initiate the process of expropriation [to ensure that there is no disruption of operations when the current licence expires on September 4, 1999]. I have done this because CFMETR is important to the national security of Canada, significant to the economic well-being of the local communities in the Nanaimo area, and essential to Canada’s ability to fulfil our defence commitments at home and abroad.(4)

Unless U.S.-Canadian salmon talks resume soon, a key Canadian torpedo range used by the U.S. Navy base at Keyport will be closed. 

By Lloyd Pritchett
Sun Staff

Disruptions spawned by the Pacific salmon dispute between Canada and the United States could soon spread beyond the Alaska state ferry system to impact a prized torpedo testing range in Canada used extensively by the U.S. Navy.

Glen Clark, premier of Canada's westernmost province of British Columbia, has decided to shut down the underwater test range on Aug. 22 if the dispute over salmon fishing quotas is not worked out by then. The range is used primarily by the Naval Undersea Warfare Center at Keyport, West Sound's third-largest employer.

"The countdown is on," said Jean Wolff, spokesman for Clark.

Canadian fishermen late Monday ended a three-day blockade of the Alaska state ferry Malaspina in Prince Rupert, B.C., but vowed to keep fighting for a fair share of the millions of Pacific salmon roaming between Alaska, Canada, Washington state and Oregon.

They say U.S. fishermen are illegally harvesting Canadian salmon and threatened to take further action if there is no settlement in a week.

At the same time, B.C. Premier Clark signaled that he will go ahead and close the Nanoose Bay naval testing range off Vancouver Island in a month unless the United States signs a renewed Pacific salmon treaty with Canada by then or agrees to accept binding arbitration on a new salmon treaty.

"Cancelling the (testing range) agreement will demonstrate that there are consequences when the U.S. ignores its international obligations, including treaty commitments to Canada," Clark wrote in a letter to Canada Prime Minister Jean Chretien.

"It is no longer tolerable to have the U.S. government enjoy the benefits of the use of Nanoose Bay, at the same time as it denies Canada the benefits and protection owing to Canadian salmon under the Pacific Salmon Treaty," he wrote.


Google Search Criteria:    Nanoose Bay Torpedo testing range expropriation


B.C. regains torpedo range

British Columbia regained jurisdiction yesterday over a controversial underwater torpedo-testing range off Vancouver Island in a court decision that could rekindle old animosities between Ottawa and the West Coast.

The federal government expropriated the Nanoose Bay torpedo test range in September of 2000, the first federal expropriation of provincial property since lands were taken for the railways in the early years of the 20th century.

The federal process of expropriation was flawed "and cannot stand," Mr. Justice Douglas Campbell of the Federal Court of Canada said in a 45-page ruling.

A report of public hearings on the expropriation did not provide a full account of the grounds of objection, he said. In a report to the federal minister, the hearing officer gave contentious subjective analysis that was not required and failed to report information that was required, Judge Campbell also said.

A federal government spokesman said Ottawa has not yet decided whether it will appeal the ruling.
"We're reviewing the decision and will decide on what action to take in the coming days," Dan del Villano, a public works official, said.

Ottawa expropriated the land in the heat of a bitter fight with the New Democratic Party government of former premier Glen Clark over salmon fishing, support for fishing communities and the presence of nuclear-powered submarines in Canadian coastal waters.

 The province owned the seabed off the eastern coast of Vancouver Island, but the federal government had leased the 225-square kilometre site for more than three decades, mostly for use by the U.S. Navy.


Google Search Criteria:   Kinder Morgan Regulated by Transport Canada 


Trans Mountain Pipeline System

 In operation since 1953, the Trans Mountain pipeline system (TMPL) is the only pipeline system in North America that transports both crude oil and refined products to the west coast. TMPL moves product from Edmonton, Alberta, to marketing terminals and refineries in the central British Columbia region, the Greater Vancouver area and the Puget Sound area in Washington state, as well as to other markets such as California, the U.S. Gulf Coast and overseas through the Westridge marine terminal located in Burnaby, British Columbia. Only crude oil and condensates are shipped into the United States. 



In 1984, a more specific question was placed before the Supreme Court in Re Strait of Georgia.(9) Without challenging the general principle set forth in Offshore Minerals, British Columbia claimed that the historical documentation surrounding the establishment of the province proved that certain bodies of water, and the seabed beneath them, had in fact been within the boundaries of the province at Confederation, and were therefore still the property of the province. The question put to the Supreme Court of Canada was:

Are the lands or any part or parts thereof including the mineral and other natural resources of the seabed and subsoil, covered by the waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the Strait of Georgia (sometimes called the Gulf of Georgia), Johnstone Strait and Queen Charlotte Strait (bounded on the south by the international boundary between Canada and the United States of America, on the west by a line from Tatoosh Island lighthouse to Bonilla Point reference mark and on the north by a straight line drawn across Queen Charlotte Strait from Greeting Point on Nigei Island to McEwan Point on Bramham Island) the property of the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia?(10)

Dickson J. summarized the issue before the court:

In the 1967 Off-shore Reference this court applied the reasoning in Keyn [an 1876 British case standing for the proposition that the realm of England extended only to the low-water mark, and all beyond was the high seas] to the territorial sea surrounding British Columbia. It held that though immediately prior to Confederation this three-mile strip might well have been "British territory," the Imperial Parliament had done nothing to extend the boundaries of British Columbia to include this strip, and therefore the normal assumptions should prevail, namely, that the territory of the colony just prior to Confederation ended at the low-water mark...
In order to succeed in the present Reference, therefore, British Columbia must demonstrate that prior to Confederation either the lands and waters in question were "within the realm" as the term is used in The Queen v. Keyn or else that by some overt act Britain incorporated them into the territory of the Colony of British Columbia so as to displace the "normal assumption" cited in the 1967 Offshore Reference...
If [British Columbia] cannot make good on either claim, then the lands and waters were not within the province at Confederation, the United Kingdom retained them between 1871 and the period (1919-1931) during which Canada acquired sovereign status and succeeded to the rights of the United Kingdom.(11)

The Supreme Court found that the historical documentation, and in particular the 1866 Imperial Act for the Union of the Colony of Vancouver Island with the Colony of British Columbia had incorporated the straits in question within the boundaries of the colony of British Columbia, and that they therefore continued to be within the boundaries of the Province of British Columbia after Confederation. The western boundary of first the colony and then the Province of British Columbia was the "Pacific Ocean," meaning the open Pacific, "thus making the western boundary of the United Colony the coastline formed by the several islands off the coast of British Columbia, including Vancouver Island."(12) The straits at issue were within the boundaries of British Columbia, and therefore the seabed and subsoil of those straits were the property of the province.



Trans Mountain Pipeline Submission to the ... - Transport Canada



Google Search Criteria:  Kinder Morgan Regulated by Transport Canada 






Say No 2 Moe!!!  Saskatchewan Premier:

If both Alberta and Saskatchewan cut B.C. off from neighbouring fuel supplies, Moe feels it will be an effective enough message, and is not considering other measures.

Moe is adamant that this is pipeline is federal jurisdiction, and as it has approval from the National Energy Board, construction needs to go ahead.

“[Are] the ports, are the pipelines, are the railways under the federal purview? Is the coastline a Canadian coastline or is it a British Columbian coastline? Because if it is not a Canadian coastline then we have another conversation to have,” Moe said.


Hey Moe, the answer is NO

1 comment:

e.a.f. said...

Good of you to print the articles regarding Nanoose Bay. I'm sure many who live in B.C. don't know about that. Every time I drive by there, at least once a month, I remember. Now we are faced with the oil/tar dump which is bound to happen. I'm opposed to all the tankers which will be going through our harbour. A spill will happen. People just don't understand about the coastal waters and how they change as fast as they do. Some one ought to take those pipeline proponents out on the water during a big storm. Just the waves rolling onto Point Holmes on Wed. in Comox would have given them a good look at what its like and that is almost normal.

it is beyond me why those politicians and business people are acting as if its the end of the world if that pipeline isn't built. All that will happen is all that tar/oil wont be leaving our country. What is going out, will continue to go out. Things will remain static, but going from one tanker a week to one a day, is just asking for trouble. I for one do not want my taxes to pay for the clean up. Let China and Kinder Morgan do that along with Alberta. This tar is not for our consumption. Its going to China. A country with a horrible human rights record.

The oil companies in Alberta, a number of them are close to majority owned by the Communist government of China and the Red Army of China. Its not like they have our best interests at heart or our environment. We have to only look at what they did to their own country.

The ships won't be Canadian. We won't know how old they are, how well built they are, and who is part of the crew and what their competency is. Yes, we will hear its all first rate, but those who are telling us that, want that pipeline and that tar. We will never know if the truth is being told to us.

if the pipeline ruptures it will cause an environmental disaster on land. who is going to pay for that? We all ready have Alberta having to pay for the clean up of abandoned wells. Does any one think they'll pay for land spills here? Have a look at what happened in some neighbourhoods in the U.S.A. when pipelines ruptured. No their monitoring didn't catch it. It wasn't caught until people had oil seeping up on their front lawns.

these corporations are going to go with the lowest bidder, standards will not be maintained and we on our coast will have nothing left. Only those who are greedy want this pipeline. Notley may have to do her song and dance because if she doesn't Kenny will win their next election. However, Trudeau needs to remember there are more federal Liberal M.P.s from B.C. than their are from Alberta. Don't fxxk with my coast.