Special Report (March 1978)

Transcription (Hover to view)


UNION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA INDIAN CHIEFS

SPECIAL QS PORT

P.O. Box 86003, North Vancouver, B.C. V7L 4J5
Telephone: (604) 986-2236







MARCH 1978



FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT KILLS
OIL PORT INQUIRY

February 23, 1978 — Len Marchand,
Minister of the Environment announced there
will be no oil port on the coast of B.C., now
or in the forseeable future. Prime Minister
Trudeau said Canada would reopen the ques-
tion of an oil port only if it was needed to
meet Canada’s energy demands. Mr. Marchand
said that the dangers of a major oil spill
outweighed any of the benefits of an oil port.

The government decision came only hours
after Dr. Andrew Thompson, head of the
West Coast Oil Ports Inquiry, submitted his
interim report to Cabinet, in which he urged
the government to either kill the oil port
or resume the Inquiry within one month.
The government chose to kill the oil port
and the West Coast Oil Ports Inquiry.

UBCIC Reaction

Upon hearing the news, President George
Manuel issued this statement:

“The Union of British Columbia Indian
Chiefs views with guarded optimism the an-
nouncement by the Federal Government that
it sees no need for a West Coast oil port. If
they mean what they say, the announce-
ment by Mr. Marchand means the Indian
people of British Columbia have won a victory
today, as have all the citizens of this province
and all residents of the coast.

The Union of British Columbia Indian
Chiefs has always known, and has stated
publicly on many occasions, that a West
Coast oil port is an unjustified threat to the
fisheries of our waters, and, especially to the
salmon. We have always known, and have
always argued before the Thompson Inquiry,
that Canada has no need for a West Coast

oil port. We are happy that the Federal
Government has finally agreed with us.

BUT:

We remain unconvinced at this time that
a West Coast Oil Port has been conclusively
rejected by Canada. For the Cabinet to simply
state an opinion, as it has done today, is just
not good enough. We have seen before how
Kitimat Pipelines Limited has tried to manip-
ulate the Thompson Inquiry, the Federal
Government and the Indian people of British
Columbia. How can we be sure that the
upcoming hearings of the National Energy
Board will not provide the pipeline company
with another opening to secure a West Coast
oil port for the supply of American oil to
American markets?

The Union of British Columbia Indian

Chiefs understands that no steps have been
taken to ensure that this can never occur.”

We need the government to pass a law
against the establishment of a port!



WHAT DID WE LEARN?

Our Union learned a great deal from the
West Coast Oil Ports Inquiry, especially in
ways many of our people had never really
experienced since the Inquiry process is un-
known to us in B.C. The Inquiry provided us
with an issue around which we could organ-
ize provincially and on another level; in the
communities. We also benefited by the re-
search that we conducted and we were able
to learn a great deal about the legal aspects of
the Inquiry as it applied to Indians in B.C.

In order to prepare for the Inquiry, the
U.B.C.1.C. staff assigned to organize, had to
learn about what a West Coast Oil Port was
all about and what kinds of threats the
proposed oil port would have on the com-
munities. We did a great deal of research that
could be used as back-up information for
communities to organize their opposition to a
port and also we acquired a large volume of
information that we could use in presenting
evidence to the formal hearings of the West
Coast Oil Ports Inquiry. We learned a great
deal about big oil companies, the economics of
oil and the environmental impact oil would
have on our fish. It was a new language for us
to master. We met with experts in Economics
and Environment who spoke technical language
that we didn’t understand but had to learn
fast. Many of us could be seen walking around
the office with glazed eyes mumbling: “supply
and demand, supply and demand”, “‘short-
falls in the ‘80's, “‘barrels-per-day, barrels-
per-day’’. At one point, one of our staff mem-
bers had a dream in which thousands of bar-
rels of Kentucky Fried Chicken spewed out
of a pipeline into the sea!

As we became more aware of the poli-
tics of oil, all of us began to realize how big
companies and government work together to
legislate decisions that affect our lives without
considering how it would affect ordinary
people let alone, we the Indians of B.C. who
still have legal rights to the land and waters
of this province. The Inquiry gave us a chance
to make our voices heard on such a threaten-
ing proposal as an oil port and supertanker
traffic with its negative impacts on our land
and marine resources.



OUR FISHING RIGHTS:

The Inquiry became an important vehicle
to fight for our fishing rights and the protec-
tion of our marine resources. The U.B.C.1I.C.
central office staff organized fish forums on
fishing rights in various parts of the province.
At these forums people spoke very strongly
about their fishing rights and protection of
these rights. The communities took the oppor-
tunity at these forums to discuss the negative
implications and impact any proposed oil
ports with supertanker traffic would have on
Indian food fishing and fishing rights. Com-
munity Hearings were scheduled throughout
the province because our communities were
equally important to the oil ports inquiry as
the experts in the formal hearings. It was
essential that we be heard at this Inquiry
in light of our history of reliance on the
marine -resources, especially the salmon. The
evidence prepared by communities for the
Inquiry repeatedly brought forward our de-
pendence on salmon and the foods the sea
provides us. At both the fish forums and the
community hearings it was clearly stated by
person after person that we want protection
of our fishing rights and marine resources.



THE INQUIRY LISTENED













THE INQUIRY LEARNED MARCH 1978

U.B.C.1L.C.

TANKER TRAFFIC NOW

Since the completion of the Alaska Pipeline last spring, oil tankers have been travelling through
our waters to the ARCO oil refinery at Cherry Point, Washington. Though these tankers are no
larger than 125,000 dead weight tons, their numbers are increasing. Oil tankers now travel! our
coast at a rate of one per day. The tanker lanes are 100 to 150 miles off our coast, but the threat
of an oil spill killing the resources of our waters is still real. Also a $1 billion dollar proposal to
build an oil super port at Port Angeles, Washington and a pipeline to the U.S. Midwest is far from

dead.

Dr. Andrew Thompson, former head of
the West Coast Oil Ports Inquiry, has said he
thought his set of hearings could be used to
consider the dangers posed by existing tanker
traffic along the coast of B.C. as well as any
future traffic bound for a Port Angeles port.
Because the Inquiry has been cut short, this
has not been done. Our President, George
Manuel said in his statement of February 23:

“But there are still oil tankers plying
the waters of our coast: supertankers carrying
oil to California or Washington State. Even
without the added hazards of a West Coast

oil port, this tanker traffic poses a real threat
to the fishery too, . . . Without the Inquiry
there is now no ready means to examine
existing tanker traffic. We are waiting to
learn of the Federal Government’s intentions
in this regard.””

While we wait, the Union must consider
what action to take, even without any further
Inquiry, to protect our fish against the in-
creasing amount of oil being spilled and
leaked by the tankers going down the West
Coast now. Even without any new West Coast
Oil Port, the number of tankers on our Coast
continues to increase.



OTHER THREATS TO

The Inquiry has helped to make the In-
dian people aware of almost unthinkable
dangers that now threaten our aboriginal
fishing rights.

Supertankers and massive oil spills are
only part of the problem. |ndustrial and urban
development has been rapidly increasing. Not
enough care has been taken to protect the
fish and fish habitat, Power Dams, road con-
struction, logging and milling timer, waste
chemicals from Industry and Agriculture,
urban sewage — all these activities have been
undertaken in such a destructive way that
they have already cut the fish runs in half.
Some runs have been wiped out.

An attempt is being made to blame

INDIAN FISHING:

Indian fishing for this depletion. The Fisheries
Department is working right now toward
placing a quota on Indian food fishing based
on some estimate of the amount of fish
“needed” by Indian people.

Indian fishing people are being harrassed
and taken to court on questionable and petty
charges. All Indian people and our fishing
rights are being publicly and falsely discredited
in the press.

Stimulated in part by our experience in
the West Coast Oil Ports Inquiry, the Union
of B.C. Indian Chiefs is now making plans
to deal constructively with all these threats
to our fish and our fishing rights.



WCOPI: A Brief History



Spring 1977

Dr. Andrew Thompson, UBC law professor,
is mamed by the federal cabinet to assess
the risks and benefits of existing oil tanker
traffic on the west coast, and the implications
of a major oil port at Kitimat. He must
report back to Ottawa by the end of the year
with his findings and recommendations.

July 1977

' Organizations participating in the West Coast
Oil Ports Inquiry make their opening state-
ments. UBCIC president George Manuel re-
minds the Inquiry that Indian people have
sovereignty over marine resources because
aboriginal rights have never been surrendered.
He asks what is more important: food for
people or food for machines? He tells Dr.
Thompson that Canada doesn’t need a west
coast oil port, but that the United States
thinks it does. |f an oi! port is built at Kitimat,
it will be a form of “subtle expropriation” of
Canada by the United States.

The Inquiry holds its first community hearing
at the Namu fish camp near Bella Bella. Indian
leaders from Bella Bella tell the Inquiry that
the commercial fishing industry and all the
resources of the sea are crucially important to
Indian people. These, they say, should not
be risked against an oil spill impossible to
clean up.

October 1977

The Inquiry asks who will benefit from deliv-
ering oil by tankers and an oil port on our
coast. The UBCIC together with environment—
alists and Commercial Fishermen say that it is
the oil companies and the United States who
will benefit, while the people in B.C. take the
risks. We argue that a Kitimat oil port isn’t
really needed: maybe nobody except the oil
companies need the oil, and even if people in
the United States do need it, then there are
other ways to get the oil to them.

During October, the Inquiry travelled to the
communities of Mount Currie and Lillooet.
Dr. Thompson was told that what happens to
the salmon on the coast is very important be-
cause Indian People all the way upriver depend
on the salmon for food. This is something to
always remember when talking about oil
tankers and oil spills. Indian people who don’t
live on the coast have a right to the fish, too,
and Thompson was told their interest should
not be risked .against an oil spill either.

November 1977

The company that wants to build the oil port,
Kitimat Pipelines Ltd., won't take a clear po-
sition and really isn’t participating in the
Inquiry. Dr. Thompson goes to Ottawa and
meets with the federal cabinet ministers to
whom he is to report by December 31. They
agree that the Inquiry will be adjourned until
Kitimat Pipelines does declare itself. Mean-
while, the December 31 deadline will be
eliminated and not replaced with another one.

Dr. Thompson will submit to the cabinet by
March 31 astatement of his proceedings. Fund-
ing for organizations participating in the In-
quiry, including the UBCIC, will be continued.
December 1977

Hearings are held to get the views of partici-
pants as to what Dr. Thompson’s statement of
proceedings should say. The UBCIC again out-
lines its major positions and calls for an early
re-activation of the Inquiry.

Then Ottawa does an about-face. Len Mar-
chand, Minister responsible for the Environ-
ment, tells Dr. Thompson the Inquiry will be
terminated at the end of March. Marchand
says nothing about funding for participants .
September 1977

The Inquiry tries to define the issues of juris-
diction: who can say what will happen to the
coast? Godfrey Kelly, from the Queen Char-
lotte Islands, and legal experts Michael Jackson
and Doug Saunders, join George Manuel to
testify that Indian sovereignty and aboriginal
rights exist both historically and in law.
Indian people have used and protected the
resources of the sea since time immemorial,
they told the Inquiry, and they have a right
and an interest to say what will happen to
them.

January 1978

With the Inquiry still adjourned, Kitimat Pipe-
lines Ltd. announces it will go ahead with its
plans with new support from an oil company
in Alaska that needs an oil port to get its oil
to the lower 48 states.

February 1978

Dr. Thompson’s statement is released to the
public. He reminds the government of its
commitments in November and calls for an
early re-activation of the Inquiry. He tells the
cabinet that there are very serious problems on
the coast as to who is responsible for tankers
and oil spills, existing tanker traffic risks and
determining what the effects of an oil port will
be. These, he says, can only be investigated
through an Inquiry and not through govern-
ment departments. Thompson says he sees
no urgent need for an oil port at Kitimat or
anywhere else on the west coast. And he tells
the government that environmental and social
risks are just as important as energy needs,
and should therefore not be ignored or take a
back seat to an oil port. The same day, Len
Marchand announces that the federal cabinet
sees no need, ‘‘now or in the forseeable
future’, for a west coast oil port. Nothing is
said about existing tanker traffic. Marchand
declares the Inquiry will still terminate at the
end of March.

The UBCIC issues a press release asking the
federal government to back up its announce-
ment with concrete action that will prove an
oil port cannot be built for at least ten years
and asking what the government intends to
do about the tankers that are already plying
our coastal waters.