Photo courtesy courtesy of John Cummin’s Constituency Office

CG: What is the biggest concern for the agricultural community in BC?

JC: The issue from an agricultural point of view is that taking 446 hectares out of the land reserve should not be so simply done; this is important land specifically for agricultural uses. If the Premier tried to take this land out and distribute it for any other industrial use every environmentalist and activist would be down his throat. He takes it and transfers it to the Tsawwassen band, who are prepared to use it for industrial purposes, and all the environmentalists head for the hills. 

CG: How does giving away land from the Agricultural Land Reserve affect the sustainability of farming in British Columbia?

JC: The big problem is that the farmland around the Fraser River is isolated and unique and there are local needs that this land could fulfill. Another issue is that you have to sustain the processors, if you grow peas is there going to be anybody to process them? There has been a gradual shift from food crops to others because processors have closed their doors. It’s a matter of producing crops locally, the more land you take away the less locally produced food you’ll have. If you take away even 500 hectares in the Prairies it may not have much of an impact but 500 hectares has a significant impact in B.C.

CG: Should the government of BC give the Tsawwassen First Nation incentives to farm the land instead of building on it or?

JC: The amount of land being transferred is good for maybe one economically viable farm. There used to be band members who farmed the land, but now there is a lot of investment involved in running a farm, some of the equipment costs upwards of a quarter of a million dollars. The Tsawwassen won’t farm the land because there is more money to be made from industrial uses.

CG: Can the Tsawwassen First Nation be blamed for trying to make economic gains?

JC: There is nothing wrong with trying make some money, but the important question is if the people making the money understand the impact their decisions will have on the land. The environmental issues are greater then the need for money.

CG: What are the biggest concerns as far as the fishing rights given to the Tsawwassen band in the treaty?

JC: If the 40 or 50 more bands up the river negotiate for the same rights and get the same access you’re going to need 170% of the allowable catch just to keep everyone afloat. 

CG: What type of impact could this have on the fishing industry in BC?

JC: If you start interfering with fishing rights the impact will be huge for people in the industry. Probably in British Columbia the fishing industry has lost some significance, as there has been a general decline over the years. By giving away these rights you’ve got people who have made an investment in their enterprise and you’re essentially saying, "We don’t care, we’re going to take it away."

CG: How do the fishing rights given to the Tsawwassen Natives compound the issue of the existing general decline?

JC: Well it is under 1% of the allowable catch, but there are bands further up the coast that are larger who will want fishing rights too. If you start divvying up fishing rights based on a per capita basis you’ll be above the allowable catch.

According to my understanding, there is very few fertile land in the world. The population is increasing, but the fertile land is decreasing day by day. Canada occupies 7% of the world's land but we have limited fertile land. Tsawwassen land is one of the most fertile lands in BC. If we use such a fertile land for other purposes than farming, there will be negative impact in ecosystem. Infrastructure like an airport, port, housing, roads, railway etc should be constructed on a non-fertile land. We have to think sustainable development. So Tsawwassen Treaty is concern only for business purposes - it only tried to make money by constructing a port instead of farming.

The treaty was driven by the Gateway - the provincial plan to expand the port and connect it with new and wider highways. This ignores the collapse of the US dollar, the steep decline in cross Pacific container traffic, the availability of new routres such as the North West passage and the widened Panama Canal and the key role played by the railways in moving transcontinental freight. All these issues are dealt at length in my blog - stephenrees.wordpress.com and on the Livable Region web site
livableregion.ca.

This is typical of the short term thinking that bedevils our political system. We need to take a strategic view of how our world is changing - and how to cope with that. Unfortunately, the appeals to justice in the TFN process have been ignored by the grab for the quick buck. A sad day for Canada and the Tsawwassen, who both deserve much better leaders with real vision

The TFN treaty was done without proper consideration of the Semiahmoo First Nation treaty, the protection of our Agricultural Land Reserve, or the Environment. This is not about giving TFN its due... its about expanding DeltaPort at the expense of our farmland, the Fraser River estuary, and our air quality in a area that shouldn't have been considered for a port in the first place. Tsawwassen First Nations accepted individual cash payouts from the government for signing the treaty and now we will all have to live with the blight of container sprawl on some of the best farmland and most important wildlife habitat in the world.