1. THAT I am a lawyer advising the Applicants, and as such have knowledge of the following facts and matters deposed to.

2. THAT I have read and reviewed the affidavit of Commander Chesley James Price, on behalf of the Respondents, and I have read and reviewed the affidavits of the Applicants.

3. THAT the affidavit of Commander Price at paragraph 7 states that the Respondents are going to prove a number of points which he lists from "a to p". The Respondents haven't yet provided any evidence on any of those points. They have only stated that they will. Most of the issues referred to in Commander Price's affidavit are already addressed at length the Applicants' 37 presently filed affidavits.

4. THAT a hearing on the basis of affidavits is a most appropriate way to adjudicate the issues in this matter, for numerous reasons. A broader range of facts and opinions would be put before the Court, than would be likely or practical for a trial with the examinations of witnesses. A hearing would be commenced in a far shorter time than a lengthy trial with many witnesses. The costs to the parties and to the taxpayers would be far less in a hearing with affidavits. The hearing by affidavit evidence is scheduled for four days on June 9 - 12, 1992. A trial with witnesses would likely require at least 3 to 6 weeks, and would likely hear far fewer witnesses, even with this duration of trial.

5. THAT a hearing on the basis of affidavits offers the best forum for presenting and examining the facts and opinions, expert and lay, that are central to this case. The Applicants' argue two main points:

   a) The porting of nuclear-powered and nuclear-capable warships in Victoria and Esquimalt harbours does indeed threaten significant adverse environmental effects to the Greater Victoria area and therefore there is a requirement under section 12 of the Environmental Assessment Review Process (EARP) Guidelines Order for the Respondents to hold a public environmental review;

   b) There is widely held public concern over the possibility of a nuclear accident or disaster in Esquimalt and Victoria harbours. Public concern itself, if widespread, is sufficient cause under Section 13 of the EARP Guidelines Order to mandate a public environmental review.

6. THAT much cogent evidence of significant environmental risk is contained in many of the Applicants' affidavits. Adducing such evidence by affidavit is far more efficient than requiring oral testimony. Not only does it allow more evidence to be presented from a broader array of laypersons and experts, but it also invites a more thorough and accurate comparison of witnesses' testimony than does oral examination. Affidavits can be read and reread, oral testimony cannot be.

7. THAT the Applicants intend demonstrating the existence of "significant "potential adverse environmental effect", pursuant to Section 12 of the EARP Guidelines Order. Potential effect is readily suited to demonstration by affidavit evidence. The question of whether a potential effect is "significant" is not a matter of meeting an exact standard of proof, as might require trial. Affidavit evidence can well provide the necessary evidence for the Court to make the required decision.

8. THAT the Applicants have already obtained and filed 37 supporting affidavits from numerous experts and others, near and far. Their thoughtful and relevant submissions are essential to the Court's proper understanding and decision in this case.

9. THAT the Applicants are two concerned citizens of modest means and a non-profit public interest organization with a very small budget. If the matter is converted to a trial, the Applicants will be unable to afford the significant costs of producing their many experts and other witnesses to testify. It would be unfair to allow the government to cost its citizens out of their quest for an environmental review. This would deny the Applicants their right to justice pursuant to Section 2(e) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

10. THAT the Applicants have presented much evidence describing wide-scale public concern in many of the their filed affidavits. The credibility and clarity of this affidavit material describing public concern is high. As well, the Applicants demonstrate the high level of public concern by the number, scope, and depth of their affidavits. On this issue too, the range and number of views presented to the Court would be much more limited by a requirement for trial by viva voche evidence. In the end, more time and money would be spent obtaining a delayed and inferior result than a hearing on affidavit evidence would provide.

11. THAT Federal Court rules allow for the pre-hearing cross-examination of affidavit writers, with a court reporter present. This allows the Respondents or the Applicants the opportunity, if they wish, to cross-examine the testimony of the other side's affiants. Therefore a trial is by no means necessary for the purposes of cross-examination, which remains an option open to both parties.

12. THAT protecting our population and environment from the danger of catastrophic nuclear accident is an urgent matter. The hearing of this lawsuit upon affidavit evidence is currently set for four days from June 9-12, 1992, at the Federal Court Trial Division in Vancouver, British Columbia. A three to six week trial with direct and cross examination of witnesses and submissions by lawyers would likely take an additional year or longer to get to Court. The potential dangers of a major nuclear accident are of such a magnitude that this delay should not be tolerated.

13. THAT further evidence of urgency is apparent from 1991 statistics released by Bill Robinson of Project Ploughshares, on the increased frequency of nuclear ship visits to Victoria, Esquimalt, and other Canadian ports. These statistics have been compiled using Department of National Defence (DND) data on ship names, nationality, dates of visits, and port berthing for each of foreign warship visiting Canadian ports. This data was released pursuant to an Access to Information Request and is published in a DND publication titled, "Foreign Ship Visits to Canadian Ports, 01 Jan., 1991 to 31 Dec., 1991." A sample page of this DND publication is attached as Exhibit "A" to this my affidavit. This DND data does not inform the reader concerning which ships are non-nuclear and which ships are nuclear powered and/or nuclear capable. Bill Robinson of Project Ploughshares has reviewed this published DND data and compared it with available information concerning nuclear weapons capability and nuclear powered status for those foreign naval ships which visited Canadian ports in 1990 and 1991. The Project Ploughshares summary of this data includes a description of Bill Robinson's methodology and is attached as Exhibit "B" to this my affidavit.

14. THAT these summaries of data on nuclear ship visits contained in Exhibit "B" show that in 1990 there were 18 nuclear-powered ship days in Esquimalt Harbour, while in 1991 there were a record 55. In 1990 there were 19 nuclear weapons-capable ship days in Esquimalt Harbour, but in 1991 there were 65. In Victoria harbour there were no nuclear-capable ship days in 1990, but in 1991 there were four. The Canada-wide summaries contained in Exhibit "B" show that there were 67 nuclear-powered ship days in Canada in 1990, but 182 in 1991. In Canada in 1990 there were 142 nuclear-capable ship days, while in 1991 there were 236. These statistics show a recent and greatly increased exposure to risk for our population and environment. These facts add to urgency and concern. They suggest that the risk and exposure to our population and area has dramatically increased.

15. THAT in response to paragraphs 8 and 10 of Commander Price's affidavit, the Applicants have not pleaded section 7 of the Charter, and do not intend to do so.

   Powered by SunshineCommunications.ca