The West Coast Oil Ports Inquiry
officially died last Friday, as Dr.
Andrew Thompson’s mandate as
commissioner terminated March
31.

Thompson issued his final report
to federal ministers Romeo Le-
Blanc and Otto Lang March 30, but
there was little new in it, except for
a weak appeal for a new public in-
vestigation into oil tanker traffic
when the U.S. Port Angeles super-
port project nears completion ‘‘in
several years.”

In his final report, Thompson
chose to ignore the sharp warnings
that he had expressed in his in-
terim report, issued in February,
that economic and_ political
pressure from the U.S. for super-
tanker oil port at Kitimat was
mounting.

Instead he took at face value the
press release by federal minister
Len Marchand in February that
rejected the Kitimat project as “‘a
commitment by the federal cabinet
to implement whatever steps are
necessary to rule out the proposed
Kitimat. oil port now and for the
foreseeable future.”’

Thompson had earlier defined
the ‘foreseeable future”’ as 15 to 20
years, but to date, the federal
government has done nothing to
“rule out” the Kitimat port.

In fact, the application of the
Kitimat Pipeline Company — a
multinational consortium of oil
companies — to build the port and
pipeline to Edmonton, is still
pending before. the National
Energy Board. The NEB has
scheduled a series of extra-
ordinary “‘oil supply and demand
hearings” for this summer, and
most observers predict that the
result of the NEB’s hearings will
be favorable to the KPL ap-

plication.
Thompson did note in his final
report, however, ‘‘Now that

Kitimat has been ruled out, it is
likely that the Port Angeles pro-
posal will be pursued more
vigorously by its backers.’’ Even
so, Thompson said, it will be
“several years’ before such a
project ‘‘reaches the stage where
its navigational safety and oil spill
impacts as they affect Canada can
be properly assessed.”’

“At that time,” he continued, ‘‘a
new public inquiry should be ap-
pointed by the federal government
to examine these impacts.”

Relative to the position he
maintained in February, Thomp-
son’s statements to the federal
government are weak.

U.S. legislation that sets out
options for the oil companies to
deliver Alaskan crude oil to U:S.
refineries has set a timetable of the
end of 1978 for a decision on a de-
livery system.

In anticipation of that, the North-
ern Tier consortium of oil com-
panies that want to build a super-
tanker oil port at Port Angeles
already last week won a court
battle with Clallum County in
Washington state to win the right to

s
. Bk
we 3

DR. ANDREW THOMPSON ...
his term as West Coast Oil Ports
Commissioner ended March 31.

begin test drilling in Port Angeles
harbor — the first step in the con-
struction of a port.

The National Energy Board in
Canada is also likely to process the
Kitimat Pipeline Company ap-
plication before the end of the year,
making a start on a Kitimat super-
port a possibility within 10 months
to a year.

And in spite of any future oil
ports there are already several
tankers per month, sized up to 125,-
000 deadweight tons, each carrying
millions of gallons of crude oil from
Alaska to Cherry Point, Washing-
ton, only 60 miles from the Cana-
dian border.

“The West Coast Oil Ports In-
quiry should be proceeding right
now. Ina few years it is likely to be
too late,” Fishery opposition to
tankers and Oil Ports co-ordinator
Arnie Thomlinson commented to
the Tribune after Thompson
released his final report.

Any one of the tankers presently
plying Canadian waters could go
down with disastrous results for
Canada, Thomlinson said, and
there are hardly any regulations at
all governing the movement of
tankers.

Thompson himself, in his final
report, pointed to the existing
tanker traffic as the ‘‘main unre-
solved issue.’’ Tanker routes, the
ability to respond to an oil spill, re-
quirements for tanker equipment
and manning and a mandatory
vessel traffic management scheme
are all unresolved, Thompson said,
and it is a dangerous situation.

“Time is.on your side only until a
spill occurs; and an Amoco Cadiz
could ground in Rosario Strait
tomorrow!’’ Thompson declared.

Thompson ended his report with
a strong statement in defence of
the public inquiry process — a
process that the federal govern-
ment has indicated is not to its
liking after the popular victories of
the Berger and Thompson
Inquiries.

“By establishing the structure of
an inquiry and making funding
available to identified public in-
terests, there can bea sense of fair,
complete and impartial assess-
ment of the issues,” ompson

Back the paper that fights for labor —
PACIFIC TRIBUNE

“SU BSCRIBE NOW

Clip and mail to:
101 - 1416 COMMERCIAL DR., VANCOUVER, B.C.
. $8 — 1 yr.

Se re ae ee a ee ee

V5L 3X9
$4.50 — 6 mos.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—APRIL 7, 1978—Page 12

wrote. ‘“‘But more importantly, the
public will be less likely to regard

the decision as imposed by over-.

bearing economic imperatives or a
mindless technocracy..... 2
More to the point would be to say
that the public inquiry process
gave the public a voice and the op-
portunity to counter its interests to

those of the multinational corpora-

tions.

At the West Coast Oil Ports In-
quiry, the UFAWU, the Kitimat Oil
Coalition, the Nishga and Haida In-
dian Bands and environmental
groups combined to convincingly
refute the arguments of the com-
panies. It was for that reason that
the Thompson Inquiry was cut
short, but even without the oppor-
tunity to call their own witnesses
and produce their own evidence,
the oil port opponents were able to
secure the interim conclusion that
the oil companies had failed to
show a “compelling need” for any
west coast oil port.

The process was reflected in
Thompson himself who entered his
role as commissioner lacking in
some credibility; only weeks
earlier he authored a Vancouver
Sun Page Six article claiming that
“a west coast oil port is
inevitable.”

Since then Thompson has obvi-
ously changed his opinion. His
commitment to the environment
and the public interest is borne out
in his new job as a researcher and
consultant for the West Water. Re-
search Institute, a funded institute
concerned with marine environ-
mental protection.

As for the other groups, the Kiti-
mat Oil Coalition, the UFAWU and
the others are still owed funding
from the federal government for
their participation in the Thomp-
son Inquiry.

The Kitimat Oil Coalition an-
nounced this week that their
Vancouver office will close April
30, but the UFAWU’s Fishery Op-
position will remain open and
fighting.

The next battleground will be the
NEB hearings into oil supply and
demand, commencing May 24 in
Calgary. It is due to arrive in Van-
couver on May 29.

CLC CONVENTION
on national unity.

CLC delegates voice —
criticism of document

character of Canada but pointed —
out: ‘However, having gone that
far, it tails off and fails to arrive at

Continued from pg. 1

outcome of the proposed Quebec
referendum.

* “The Liberal and Conservative
parties claim that they don’t know
what is going to happen and are
trying to make sure it remains a
disunited Canada based on a
papered-over unity and the present
status quo; and the New
Democratic Party does not have a
position on the constitution,’ he
said. ‘‘But this Congress must have
one.

“That must be unity for the
future, based on a new con-
stitution, made in Canada by the
French-Canadian and English-
speaking Canadian nations, by two
equal nations,’’ he said.

“Then we will have real unity
and build a truly independent, free
and strong Canada.”

Canadian Union of Public
Employees’ delegate Dave Werlin
also criticized the statement for
failing to address itself to the
question of unity of the two nations.
He commended the document for
giving recognition to the binational

Tyndall urges boycott
of Cook celebrations

Continued from pg. 1

regalia. Our language was beaten
out of our children who attended
the good Christian schools which
were set up for our education. My
mother’s legs still bear the scars
received from the Anglican school-
teachers who caught her speaking
in her “heathen” tongue.

“But now we are supposed to
come forward and dance and sing
for the tourists with copies of our
former pride and glory.

“Apparently we are also sup-
posed to forget that still today in
this province most our people live
below the poverty level. Our infant
mortality rate is twice that of non-
Indian society.”’

Tyndalle pointed to the recent de-
cision by the provincial govern-
ment refusing recognition of
aboriginal rights and noted,
“‘While you ask the Indian people to
dress up for your celebrations,
Allan Williams states that he will
not negotiate Indian land claims
with respect for aboriginal rights.

“If your government does not
recognize these rights, does this
mean that you do not recognize

that we are this land’s indigenous
people? If we were not here first,
who then was there to greet James
Cook at Friendly Cove? Mr.
Williams’ stance and statements
can be compared only to yours in
terms of lack of knowledge, feeling
and intelligence.”

Tyndall said in her letter that she
would ‘‘protest continuously”’
during the bicentennial year and
would urge all band councils
throughout the province to do
likewise. “‘In short I plan to try as
hard as I can to urge may people to
maintain their dignity and ignore
this Cook Bicentenary,’’ she
declared.

“T admire and support the Noot-
ka people who are presently boy-
cotting the landing at Friendly
Cove. I hope to see all native In-
dians in this province joining in
this boycott. ce

“Tn all honesty Ms. McCarthy,”
Tyndall asked in the letter’s’
parting note, “‘what do we have to
sing and dance about in 1978 any
more than any other year in this
unjust and racist society?”

... debates statement from Congress committee

any conclusion. It merely

reiterates the question that

Canadians are asking themselves
— what about national unity?”’

The statement, he said, implies

that resolution of the economic
crisis would solve the crisis of
Confederation at the same time. “I
don’t think that’s true — and I don’t
think that delegates to this con-
vention ought to think so either,”
he said.

Werlin declared that failure of
the CLC to take a position on the
future relationship between the

two recognized nations was —
unacceptable. He called for the —

convening of a constitutonal
conference with equal represen-
tation from both nations, where 4
new, made-in-Canada constition
could be negotiated providing for
equal rights under law.

He also stressed that a new
constition was essential if the two
nations were to overcome the
central problem facing both of
them continuing U.S.
domination of Canada.

Noting the stronger character of
the resolution submitted prior to
the convention, Werlin charged
that the Congress document was an
attempt to skirt the issue and avoid
taking a position.

“You can’t say all these nice
pious things, about working people,
about their country and how we
need to pull together and fight for
equality, unless you are prepar
to say how you are going to do it.

“Why can’t the working class of

this country have a position?” he
asked.
“Unless we take a firm stand,

this labor congress will be failing _

the workers of both nations.”

DAVE WERLIN...new
dian constitution essential.

Cana