- Ms Kaye is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Mary Carlisle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Prem Gill is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nancy Flight is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Justin Everett is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- John Westover is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nora Etches is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Edward Henderson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Bharadwaj Chandramouli is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Dean Chatterson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Marius Scurtescu is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Robert Parkes is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- James Murton is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Susan Doyle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Vincent Strgar is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Helen Spiegelman is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Subir Guin is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Kimball Finigan is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Joanne Manley is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- David Leach is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
In Tsawwassen, a Cow for the Killing
When saving farmland and forging treaties conflict, sacred blood is spilled.
Deltaport: massive expansion?
A lot of crazy things were said last week at an SFU Downtown forum on the plan to take 207 hectares out of the Agricultural Land Reserve to settle a treaty with the Tsawwassen Band. Some folks just lose all their marbles when you show them two sacred cows and ask them to pick one for slaughter.
Throw in a small herd of sacred calves and an ox or two to gore, and you've got total chaos at the abattoir. Some treaty land may well become part of a massive expansion of Deltaport. That means shipping, from China, which means globalization, which means contracting out, loss of national sovereignty, and child labour, plus a smidgen of deadly pet food. Ships are notorious polluters, and coal travels through the port, so global warming is an issue. The inherent right of aboriginal communities to screw up as badly as the colonists is definitely on the table. Then there's the B.C. Rail spur line to the port, so privatization looms large, with Dave Basi lurking in its shadow. Did I mention Gordon Campbell? Oh, the hatred.
Western Canada Wilderness Committee stalwart Joe Foy raised the pollution issue. Essentially, he asked Tsawwassen band chief Kim Baird if she's worried that the proposed treaty might cause cancer. To which Baird replied that she didn't think agricultural practices necessarily benefit the environment.
Venerable farmer and Richmond councillor Harold Steves, who was a driving force behind the creation of the reserve, declared that "those of us who are concerned about life on this planet" believe nothing less than "mass starvation by 2080" is at issue.
Former Yukon premier and treaty-maker Tony Penikett heaped his own bucket of guilt and horror and shame onto the proceedings, which he opened with the foreboding words "As you all know, Europeans came to this continent about 500 years ago...." Before I finally fled from all the hyperbole, the treaty proponents hadn't actually said that the farmland preservationists were aggravating the rape and pillage of this continent's aboriginals, but the undercurrent was unmistakable.
No wonder the provincial NDP opposition has refused to take a position on the issue.
BC Liberals' backdoor plan?
The forum also heard some critically important and remarkably plain truths. Baird said that the Tsawwassen band needs to have some of its land returned to it, and more importantly it needs the ability to plan its own future on that land. Steves noted that British Columbians produce less than half of the food we eat, and that simply to stay at that level in the not too distant future we'll need to vastly increase production on a severely constrained agricultural land base. SFU professor and treaty negotiator Doug McArthur noted that when the ALR was created, aboriginal communities had no voice in the process, and that's a shortcoming we cannot disregard.
It's also true that we lose our best farmland one small piece at a time. And it's a given that governments sneak their most controversial plans through the back door, as far as possible from such messy inconveniences as public opinion and due process.
As such, pundit Bill Tieleman's assertion that the proposed settlement is "an attempt by the Gordon Campbell government to use the treaty process to get land out of the ALR to facilitate a huge expansion of Deltaport" seems pretty reasonable.
Steeves argued that a huge port at the mouth of the delta, when it was proposed by the W.A.C. Bennett government nearly 40 years ago, was the crucible of the ALR's creation, and contributed to the defeat of Social Credit by the NDP in 1972. Now as then, the loss of more than 400 hectares of Canada's best farmland is at stake, when directly affected farmland along the transportation corridor to the port is accounted for.
Baird said it's "unfair and misleading" to suggest the land being removed from the ALR will become port lands. She said her community would make its own decisions on the land's future. However, she also declared: "There will be no treaty without those lands coming out of the ALR." And Baird opened the door wide to port-related development. "We want to build an economy that benefits the band but also the region as a whole."
How governments sell out the farm
Tieleman said we'd all be better off if the provincial government just cut the Tsawwassen band a cheque. It would be a relief if the solution were that simple. Aboriginal communities do need the opportunity to plan their own future on at least some of the land that was taken from them. And like the proverbial farmer who wins the lottery, they may not wish to keep farming until the money's all gone.
The core of the problem is that governments -- aboriginal and otherwise -- are opportunist creatures of circumstance. From the Social Credit and Richmond's Terra Nova lands through the NDP and the Kamloops area's Six Mile Ranch to the B.C. Liberals in Tsawwassen, governments that ought to protect agricultural land too often view its conversion to another use as a cheap solution to a short-term political or economic challenge.
Governments regularly attach some noble cause to their efforts to exclude land from the reserve -- it's needed to raise the tiny town out of poverty, or for the old folks' home, or a ball field for the kids, or a park for the ages...anything that will get those little heartstrings a-humming. Lately, governments at all levels have been surfing a raft of land removal applications through the Agricultural Land Commission process on a wave of guilt over our society's treatment of aboriginals. We've seen the strategy in Prince George and Powell River, in Richmond and in Delta.
Certainly the Tsawwassen band, sandwiched between Deltaport and the BC Ferries causeway, which together have destroyed the shoreline at the band's doorstep, is entitled to redress. In seeking it, the band can hardly ignore the economic opportunity of port land development. And it's hardly surprising that the province, which long ago expropriated cheap farmland for planned port expansion, would capitalize on the opportunity.
There's lots of evidence to suggest that the B.C. Liberals have steered the treaty negotiations in a direction that will facilitate port development. Former NDP cabinet minister Tom Perry, who threatened to tear up his party membership over the NDP's equivocation, asked Baird if the band had asked for BC Ferries land. Baird replied that the province said it was not on the table. Steves asserted that the province decided which lands should come out of the ALR, and those lands are conveniently located next to the port and its transportation corridor.
BC Libs nicely positioned
We've lost a lot of prime agricultural land since the ALR was created -- 35 years ago this month. Developers and land speculators are part of the problem, of course, but governments have been complicit in all of the losses. Short-term thinking usually gets the better of us.
I'm not much of one for apocalyptic scenarios such as "mass starvation." But food security is a huge issue, and so is energy supply. History makes this very clear. Sure, port expansion will benefit us now. Will we still be able to use that capacity half a century into the future? It's hardly certain. But we will need to eat.
Unfortunately, this provincial government -- like many other governments -- tends to talk more than it walks in responding to the challenges of food security and our looming energy crisis. And while the commission that governs the Agricultural Land Reserve has shown some spine of late, turning down a Musqueam band-linked land removal application in Richmond, in the case of the Tsawwassen lands the province has cut the commission out of the process. The decision to remove the land will be a decision of the legislature.
The B.C. Liberals, of course, couldn't be happier about all this. Four decades ago, the plan to convert Delta farmland to serve the transportation industry helped to galvanized public opinion in favour of farmland protection. Today, a similar prospect has divided opinion. The government strategy down Roberts Bank way might deliver the province's first urban treaty and a big expansion of Deltaport. And here's the bonus that must have some Liberals stifling their bubbling glee: they've made the NDP look horribly indecisive, and the left's increasingly public dogfight shows no signs of abating.
In July, the 350-member Tsawwassen band is slated to vote on the proposed treaty. Baird says its approval is far from certain. One thing is clear, however. Federal, provincial and municipal governments are going to continue to hitch farmland redevelopment to aboriginal redress. When that happens, aboriginals should ask themselves if those governments have found a new way to abuse them.
Related Tyee stories:
- Is BC Down on the Farm?
- Farmland's Fate in Local Hands
- How to Safeguard BC's Farmland
- Barnston Land Ruling Looms
![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
- The Gem of Canadian Science that Harper Killed
- Who Mowed Down the Premier?
- Canada's Economy, Deconstructed (by a 12 year-old)
- Death in Remand: a Tyee Inquiry
- Bill C-38: the Environmental Destruction Act
- Now Is the Time to Talk up Big Ideas
- Sexism Tinges Criticism of Teachers' Job Action
- Death In Remand: 'A Gut Feeling'
- Bias in BC's Pesticide Decision? Follow the Bouncing Verbs
- The Ethics of Addiction Studies
- The Gem of Canadian Science that Harper Killed
- Sexism Tinges Criticism of Teachers' Job Action
- Now Is the Time to Talk up Big Ideas
- The Ethics of Addiction Studies
- Bill C-38: the Environmental Destruction Act
- Alberta Fills Pipes with Corrosive Denial
- Bias in BC's Pesticide Decision? Follow the Bouncing Verbs
- How Our Immune Systems Exaggerate Fear
- BC biotech company seeks approval for GM apple
- What's Behind BC's Doors?
- Tyee Builders Tally: Amazing!
- From Financial Advisor to Occupier
- 'Storage Wars'
- Seven Goals to Build the Conservative 'Dream'
- How Our Immune Systems Exaggerate Fear
- Who Mowed Down the Premier?
- Does Simon Fraser University Need a Men's Centre?
- Now Is the Time to Talk up Big Ideas
- Why Blackberry's Embrace of HTML5 Is Good Karma
- Bias in BC's Pesticide Decision? Follow the Bouncing Verbs
24
Login or register to post comments
DPL
5 years ago
The policy on ALR land
The policy on ALR land ending up as treaty land was straight forward. Additional lands would be subject to provincial legislation. So any ALR would be subject to the commission decisions. It was right there in the policy papers, which since this government took over sort of disappeared from sight.
I represented a very large number of non Indian occupiers in BC on land set aside. ( around 30,000). We supported the modern treaty process and I'm sure got to be a pain in the ass to some people as we argued for input that was meaningful, just like the Royal Commission co-chairs had stated, and as the BC Civil Liberties has stated in their policy paper on the subject.And was stated in the previous governments policy papers.
I no longer represent anyone as I moved , at some financial loss,to a place where laws for occupiers exist. Outside a reserve.
I'm not too sure I even support the treaty process any longer, as the rules keep shifting.
The present government changed the rules.
As for the band needing more land for its members, cast you eyes around the reserves and see how much is being used by people other than the band members. Pretty standard in many reserves. Rent out a whole bunch of the land then whine that they don't have enough land. Bill's suggestion of cutting a cheque works quite well usually with Indian groups. They arn't making any more land and we got to eat. But I wouldn't bet a loony that the Indians won't get what they want and the ALR land will end up as a container parking lot for the port. Only in BC .
DPL
5 years ago
second part
I hit the wrong key. I spent ten years of my life( with no pay coming in) arguing for accountable open treaties with laws attached. Didn't happen.
The usual excuse for not voting is. Hey we will have to pay taxes. hell, that was all in the policy papers as well. This mess could go on for a long time down the road. some folks should wise up but the business of treaty making sure makes a lot of bucks for assorted consultants, lawyers and other hangersoners. Yes I'm finished.
southdeltawalker
5 years ago
Against Port Expansion-A.P.E.
There is a citizens group fighting the Port expansion and environmental disaster.
We need your help!
Please go to our website:
http://www.againstportexpansion.org/index.html
DPL
5 years ago
southdeltawalker Two
southdeltawalker
Two opposition MLA were asked a question about the ALR land and the treaty in general. On Voice of BC this evening. Gunther , I heard has been a critic of the removal of ALR land. Rolston was the other. When the question was raised by Bill Tielman it got interesting.
Both used the now standard argument that the band gets to vote in July so they will wait. Weasel words of course. The party is hoping the band memebers will get so concerned about taxes, (which they have known about since they started) that they will vote NO , hoping for a bigger pile of lolly. Never mind that the borrowed money keeps getting bigger.
The next step is to go into the house. The BC LIberals that fought all the way to court, and finally to a referendum will taunt the Opposition party, which set the standards under Harcourt, and the previous NDP government under Barrett who brought in the reserve in the first place. The words Do the right thing will come up AD Nauseaum.
Politics is weird. Years ago a ex Socred Cabinet minister travelled a lot, telling business to get on board as certainty would make it good for business. The present government with their recent switch in direction have finally figured it out. You bet, a treaty will be good for business and business can't get farm land out of the ALR as easily as the government can, especialy if it's for a band that can plead that, it's the right thing to do. The band has said. No ALR land, no treaty. The opposition wil cave in, forgetting their previous position on ALR and the next band will be looking for similar land if it's close to their reserve. Shame on us all. The best way out for all parties is to step back, stear away from ALR land, which would dampen the opposition to the treaty . But tha isn't going to happen
mcdull
5 years ago
Developers
Its ok might as well take it all out of the ALR as the developers are just buying the farms , saying screw the neighbours and let it lie till its an eyesore and then town councils cave ( that almighty buck) and beg to let it be developed we've lost all sense of nature is beautiful and so have many of the natives. I've talked to a few who are saying we respect nature and then go out and kill a few Elk for just the horns or testicles.
Grumpy
5 years ago
Land for the Tsawwassen Band?
Living in Tsawwassen since 1962, I remember that most of the lands claimed by Baird et al, was bog. It was the pioneer farming families that drained and diked the land to make it suitable for farming.
The Tsawwassen Band was a fishing outpost and it was water not land that was important. what we get from Baird, who is a property pimp, is new-speak style of retro history. What the Tsawwassen land deal is about is greed and money and getting land out of the ALR for industrial use!
Campbell will do anything, including giving away the shop to get land rezoned for Deltaport!
Tieleman
5 years ago
ALR land dramatically underpriced in deal
Thanks for the report Charles but one thing you haven't mentioned is what Harold Steves raised - that the Tsawwassen Treaty dramatically undervalues the land that would be removed from the ALR.
Steves says the Treaty priced the farmland at $22,000 per acre but the market farmland value is about $95,000 per acre.
But for industrial land, a price of $800,000 to $1 million an acre would be expected and a price of $2 million to $2.5 million if it was turned into residential development!
That means the dollar value of the Treaty is incredibly understated by potentially hundreds of millions of dollars.
Harold Steves, who was involved on behalf of Richmond in the negotiations also noted that in the original draft agreement the ALR land was NOT removed and would have been subject to all ALR rules.
Then the Gordon Campbell government came along and put into the agreement that it would be excluded from the ALR. No wonder people are suspicious.
Lastly, neither Chief Kim Baird nor Doug McArthur denied that the Tsawwassen will indeed turn over the farmland to Deltaport for a parking lot for containers from China and elsewhere if it is removed from the ALR.
Big money, big deal, big disaster for farmland. And if this goes ahead it will be a big problem for future treaty negotiations, as I pointed out that evening.
- Bill Tieleman
alive
5 years ago
screw the containers
Yep, that is how it happened in Richmond!
large tracts lying fallow for ages, while claiming it was not economical to farm it.
Not surpirsed if Natives playing a similar game; but it might come and bite them in the ass, when the entire area is stacked to the heavens with containers!
Look at Mitchell Island? it is an eyesore to see the tip of that Island stacked high with containers.
The answer is once again to quit buying stuff from abroad and instead develop local industries.
Steeves is correct we will wind up unable to feed ourselves, and depend on the world to grow food for us and charge whatever they feel like!
We have the land-reserves thanks to Barrett, are we so blind as to let that foresight get ignored!
MJK
5 years ago
Racism... all that's left
... EDITED TO REMOVE PERSONAL INSULTS. MAKE YOUR ARGUMENTS WITHOUT MAKING SUCH ACCUSATIONS ABOUT THE CHARACTER OF TYEE WRITERS, OR PLEASE POST ELSEWHERE. -- TYEE EDITOR
take a obviously-biased position on an issue, embellish it with all kinds of "what could happen" logic, and then trot that out as an ultimate scary truth - the BC Liberal conspiracy on ALR reduction - the Indian conspiracy on how to get OUR land - the big business conspiracy on how to build a superport - ad nauseum. Gimme a break, the Liberals and/or big business ain't that organized! This kind of reasoning goes all the way back to Chicken Little!
And the comment writer that recalls (living in Tsawwassen since 1962) "most of the land claimed by Baird et al was bog" drained by pioneer families to make it suitable for farming makes me ponder the silliness of this crew. First, I have never met a pioneer from the "olden" days of 1962; secondly if it is reclaimed land from the sea, how sacred a cow can it be? Thirdly, the assertion that Tsawwassen Band was a fishing outpost and thus not entitled to "land" is just plain stupid logic. . . development by white people took away the ocean-based livelihood of the Band members, and now calling them "property pimps" because they want equal access to land-based economic opportunity is just ignorant, racist rhetoric.
In their world, it is okay to divide ALR into 5 acre parcels for the construction of mansions, it is okay to allow the horsey-set to build riding rings on perfectly arable land, it is okay to allow thousands of acres of potential "food producing" land to be set aside for greenhouses growing bedding out flower plants and tulips above the ground in scientific soil that probably isn't soil at all, BUT it's not okay to allow 350 Aboriginal people to try to improve their standard of living and stop the dependency cycle of asking the federal government for hand-outs? I see through the naive, racist cleverness of attempting to prevent Aboriginals from participating in the economy and then shouting foul when they ask for help from the government that has, by law, a fiduciary responsibility to provide for their welfare.
The self-righteous, faux-indignance of the Tyee writers and their hangers-on give white people a bad name and a bad reputation.
Just for the record, we're not all like that.
Charles Campbell
5 years ago
Policy shift
All your points are worth making, Bill, although I would add a little bit more to your interpretation of how the agreement changed. In 2002, the province created language in the Agricultural Land Commission Act to help the commission remove land from the reserve in the case of treaty settlements. Then they decided instead that the legislature would rule on the Tsawwassen removal, and perhaps others.
I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong, as I'm doing a little supposition here, but I think it's highly likely that the band's position has always been that it wants some land out of the ALR. I suspect the language was absent from the draft agreement because at that point the band intended to use the new language in the ALC legislation to apply for a removal.
I can't speak to the provincial government's motivation in changing its approach, but I will say there's an underlying issue here that concerns me. Broadly speaking, there are two ways the provincial government can get land out of the reserve. One is to make it a political decision, and just vote the land out in the legislature. The other is to weaken the ALC Act by including all sorts of language that allows the commission to take land out for this reason or that. Then the commission's mandate becomes muddy, the commission process becomes a target of abuse, and its limited resources are misallocated.
So, all other issues aside, I can't say I'm entirely unhappy about the government's change in its approach. There have even been some recent improvements in the commission's policies and practices. However, the government must also clarify and toughen some weak language in the Act, to further assist the commission in focusing on its core mandate -- protecting farmland from other development.
G West
5 years ago
Charles and Bill
I think part of the problem isn't just the question of the ALR land and its disposition.
I think it may well be possible to support treaty settlements and land claims solutions that do involve ALR land and commercial options. However, I can't avoid the conclusion that commercial interests are driving the Tsawwassen deal and have been driving several of the other treaty tables too.
What I'd like to see someone do is a careful and intensive scenario analysis of what the Tsawwassen deal with look like in 10 years time.
Taking into account the various mortgage costs to reach settlement (costs which will be borne out of the treaty proceeds) and accumulated interest expense; exploring the potential alienation of much of the property in the area and the best-case scenario for revenue generation by the new Tsawwassen First Nations 'municipality', I'd like to know what the downside potential of this deal may be - both for the residents of Delta and the Tsawwassens themselves.
As for the commercial and industrial users, I'm sure they will be able to look after themselves.
In fact, that's a big part of the problem.
DPL
5 years ago
Who said what, when. Ex RAC Member
Hey Charlie. Try to find the records of decisions for the Tsawassen treaty discussions way back when the NDP was government. I doubt you will find the ALR land in those discussions.( If you can still find those records. All the policy papers disappeared as the Campbell government took over.) I can only believe the reords of decisions went as well. The Treaty Commission archives might have the information. I'm sorry to say I never attended any of the Tsawwsen main table events as an observer. I doubt many other folks did either. As at so many other tables, the public didn't bother so not many folks actually know how the bargaining went.Mike Harcourt made sure the meetings were open and very few of us bothered to make sure they were. You might try to find a ex member of the Lower mainland ( Regional Advisory Committee( RAC) I used to hear some strange comments from assorted TAC's. The municipal folks.My gosh one fellow, now a cabinet minister asked me a very dumb question. So I tske what some TAC members with a very large grain of salt.
I think maybe TNAC is gone as well but they would have the same information I mention. You can only surmise as you say. But written decisions during treaty negotiations don't leave much to the imagination. Business wants land removed from the ALR and they are getting what they want. The public ignored the process and now are second guessing each other
Grumpy
5 years ago
Racism, racism, racism
So easy when one can't debate an issue is to cry racism. Baird, Tsawwassen's band chief is a real estate agent or what I call a 'property pimp'. The whole land claim issue is one of stuff and nonsense, with invented history created to deal with invented demands.
One of the most respected elders of the Tsawwassen Band, Bertha Williams is against the treaty, in part to the land being taken out of the ALR. The real problem with the treaty is the issue of paying taxes.
As for the history of the Tsawwassen Band, I would recommend reading it. As for pioneer families in Tsawwassen, try the Brandrith Clan; farming there since before the turn of the century.
Let's face it. until the mid 30's, much of the land was bog and careful and expensive drainage has turned it into the good quality farmland that it is today.
To turn that into container storage is a crime.
snert
5 years ago
Grumpy
So in your world the Tsawwassen Band must be farmers. Interesting.
BC Mary
5 years ago
David Beers' good article in today's The Globe and Mail
Off-topic maybe, but apropos David Beers who has an excellent article in today's national edition of The Globe and Mail.
This is as far as I could get online:
Tankers on the B.C. coast are getting too close for comfort
DAVID BEERS
People on British Columbia's north coast have come to rely on a couple of assumptions. One, oil tankers are forbidden to sail close to their jagged shore. Too risky.
The full text of this article has 867 words.
To continue reading this article, you must be a Globe Insider subscriber or a 5- or 6-day newspaper subscriber.
Well worth searching up a print copy. And no Media Monitors have paid me to say this ... in fact, Gordon Campbell is probably in church right now praying that this story will go away.
snert
5 years ago
You'll have to break down and sign up.
Here's the link to the article but you have to be logged on.
Somebody ought to take Harper for a boat ride.
gardensnake
5 years ago
First I'd like to correct a
First I'd like to correct a little misconception. The need for treaties may have been caused by racism, but the justification for finally enacting new treaties today is about making up for that history, not race. There is no "race-card being pulled" in bringing about any new treaty.
Treaties do not benefit aborginal Canadians, as an ethnic group or "race". They only benefit the discreet unit of the band in question that has suffered grevious wrongs, amoung them unconsensual settlement on land within their territory (i.e. theft).
I find very disturbing this notion that the potential of currently unproductive ALR lands is more important than righting a wrong done to a First Nations community. I put a lot of stock in the ALR myself, but it really comes down to a matter of rights. This land wasn't ours to put in the ALR in the first place.
Anyone want to pull out the "transistor radio fallacies" while we're at it?
DPL
5 years ago
It's really quite simple
It's really quite simple "gardensnake" ALR land was to be excuded but if some ended up in the deal, it would not be partr of the band lands. so it was to be subject to the provincial legislation as would any other aquired land be subject to provincial law. It was quite clear until failry recently when it seems a"anything for a treaty" became the mantra. A great percentage of people don't support the idea of modern treaties, including a lot of Indians. This ALR grab is just one more way to make enemies rather than friends. I earlier stated I worked as a occupier for ten years to get modern treaties, represeenting a lot of people. When the conditions started changing I left, lsoing money at the time, but ended up not being under some bands iodeas of laws. I no longer can honestly say I support this mess.
freebear
5 years ago
Will it all be a moot point with sea level rise?
I, for one, come out on the First Nations' side.
As any community, they need to establish a community. The ALR lands were 'stolen' from the First Nations in the first place.
Sure I worry that they (FNs) will follow in the same unsustainable footsteps of the colonists, but hey the paradigm we all follow is perpetual economic growth, and if there is more money in containers than radishes so be it.
In the end, we will all have failed to live and plan for sustainability!
And besides, what if, or when, the sea level rise happens?
Underwater farming!?
Harold Steves
5 years ago
We are running out of land and time.
In 1973 when we brought in the Agricultural Land Reserve I was an optimist. There appeared to be plenty of time before local or world wide food security was threatened. Today I feel like Rumpelstiltskin waking up after 34 years to hear the very same arguments for "spending" our banked farmland that we heard in 1973. Whether it is Six Mile Ranch at Kamloops or the Garden City Lands in Richmond, every community has a special need; and if "they" can get land out of the ALR why can't we?
On April 6th the scientists of the International Panel on Climate Change told the world that we could have mass starvation in Africa and Asia and food shortages world wide by 2080. That's 70 years from now. We have dithered away the last 34 years. I am no longer an optimist.
In 1973 I wrote an agrologists report for the NDP government noting that we produced less than 50% of many of our foods but we were growing 86% of our vegetables here in BC.
Recently another agrologists report on "BC Food Self-Sufficiency " was prepared for the BC Ministry of Agriculture. It noted that today we produce only 43% of our vegetables, exactly half of what we produced 34 years ago. Even more alarming, we need 92,000 hectares or about 200,000 more acres of irrigated farmland in the Fraser Valley by 2025 just to maintain that level of production for an expected 30% population increase. If the IPCC is right, and the rest of the world has no food to export to us, we will also have to find land to grow much of the remaining 57% of the vegetables we consume.
While 1,000 acres for Delta Port expansion may not seem like much to some people the Fraser Valley is very small. It has the best soil in Canada with the mildest climate and Delta farmland is capable of growing two crops a year.
The foreshore and water where the existing Delta Port and Ferry Terminal are located was once the main "land base" for the Tsawwassen First Nation. Legally and morally this is the land that should be given back to the TFN. Instead of expanding Delta Port onto farmland and leasing it back from the TFN the existing Delta Port land could be leased back. However, that wouldn't satisfy the real reason for this land deal which is to expand the port onto farmland.
Skookum1
5 years ago
a moot point with sea level rise?
Yeah, that's a very good point. And the Tsawwaseen upland won't be high enough, either, potentially.....if I were the Tsawwassens I'd negotiate for higher ground somewhere - a lot higher. Probably would take a deal with another First Nation, but ultimately everyone in the lowland areas is gonna have to vamoose upwards. Or not at all....
Skookum1
5 years ago
or rather
short of a really big system of sea gates with docks for shipping spanning the Johnstone Strait, Strait of Juan de Fuca, and the Tumwater Pass at Olympia.....
Budd Campbell
5 years ago
... I'm doing a little
... I'm doing a little supposition here, but I think it's highly likely that the band's position has always been that it wants some land out of the ALR. I suspect the language was absent from the draft agreement because at that point the band intended to use the new language in the ALC legislation to apply for a removal.
My thanks to Charles Campbell for telling his readers in so many words that his statements here are a supposition on his part.
The treaty that the previous NDP Govt was considering involved transfer of ownership over the very same pieces of farm property as in the current treaty, that is, those lands the BC Govt expropriated in the 1960s for use as port related development lands, but which a few years later were included in the ALR. The NDP's draft treaty would have transfered them with the ALR zoning intact.
The band could, as you suggest, apply for exclusion. But there's a 180 degree difference between that situation and one in which the lands are transfered with no ALR zoning left in place and the band can pave the entire area the next morning.
I find Chief Baird's cop-out answers on the band's intentions for these lands to be quite offensive. If any federal or provincial politician tried this kind of thing in statements to the media and the public they would immediately be labelled a ridiculous prevaricator.
Continuing with that theme, should the NDP opposition come out firmly against this treaty because of the ALR impact, I would expect Liberal propagandist Terry Glavin to be the first to pen columns in both the Tyee and the Straight accusing James and her Caucus of pandering to racists, and pointing out one more time that Aboriginals across BC are growing closer and closer to the Liberals, both federally and provincially.
G West
5 years ago
I think that's almost exactly right Budd
But, from what I've heard there is a growing body of opinion starting to look at the probable result of this approach down the road a ways. And, the vote is not a sure thing by any means.
I'd be interested to see an up-to-date public accounting of the total costs the Tsawwassens have shouldered to get them this far into the process wouldn't you.
I think it may be time for a little cost/benefit analysis because I think the big winners in this one are not going to be individuals or cultural groups.
If anyone decides to oppose this treaty, they will have to do it on the merits or, as you suggest, risk being labelled for their opposition.