I have heard Doug McArthur on other ocassions, speaking about the softwood lumber dispute for example, and he is a very intelligent and well-informed policy analyst.

Personally, had I been asked to vote on this Treaty I would have voted against it, since I too think that preserving the ALR is an important value. If the Tsawwassen Band takes the position that having that land in farm use represents insufficient income for its members, then the federal and provincial govnerments should have made up the difference in an enriched monetary offer.

I would go further. If a Carole James Government is elected in 2009, and the lands have not already been converted to an asphalt desert peppered with warehouses and stacks of containers, it should make a public offer to the Tsawwassen Band to re-open the Treaty, keep the lands in question in the ALR, and increase the financial offer.

If the Band administration's position is that it cannot possibly consider a tradeoff involving more cash from the Crown, instead of cash from port development companies, one would be justified in concluding that their position is not fully rational, and that those speaking for the Band have in mind financial considerations that extend beyond the financial interests of their members as a collectivity.

I agree completely with MacArthur's analysis of who is responsible for the confusion in the NDP's positioning. It's not the Leader, Carole James. It's a Caucus that cannot handle difficult tradeoffs without becoming bogged down in the midst of contradictory impulses. Part of that may be inexperience and error, but a good part of it may be deliberately contrived by people who actually want the party to look bad so that they can use the resulting loss of standing in the opinion polls as excuse to oust James before the 2009 election.

Because I am the allegedly "extremist" columnist in question in Doug McArthur's op-ed, I've responded to his wrongheaded piece on my blog - at http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/ for interested Public Eye readers.

Budd says:"I would go further. If a Carole James Government is elected in 2009, and the lands have not already been converted to an asphalt desert peppered with warehouses and stacks of containers, it should make a public offer to the Tsawwassen Band to re-open the Treaty, keep the lands in question in the ALR, and increase the financial offer. "
Highly unlikely Budd because to open a treaty all three parties have to agree to reopen. If a court decides that any section of the treaty can't stand in court, the remainder would remain in place and negotiations might be started on the one issue but still would require a three party agreement. Such items are pretty basic information if one actually spent time reading how these things are structured. Don't blame parts of the caucus. Just call a free vote and see what happens, might be the way to go. But leaders are in position at the whim of the other MLA's. anyone rushing to take over the job, Budd?

and Teileman does have a lot of background on the treaty stuff. Yes the Sun kind of forgot to mention Doug, just like Graham Bruce( failed MLA) are working for bands. Oops, does this make me a extremist commenter? If it does, so what.
DL

Highly unlikely Budd because to open a treaty all three parties have to agree to reopen.

I realize all three parties would have to agree to reopen the treaty. But if one of those parties is asking to reopen with a view towards fully indemnifying and even improving the position of one of the others, what rational objection could there possibly be. I emphasize, what rational objection?

Bud, your comments didn't indicate you had any knowledge of the way to reopen a treaty. It sounded like a bit of a cop out for Carole James the way you wrote. My God, one NDP MLa went on TV and compared a treaty to a long term lease. There is no connection and he got most upset when told he was out to lunch on the subject.

Certainty is a short time item if it was as easy as you indicated. You said, if the land wasn't being used for containers , covered with ashfalt and such. Do you really believe a band would wait around for a couple of yeras just to see if the NDP again became government? It was NDP Policy that wouldn't allow ALR land without the standard conditions, just like anyone else would be subject to for land removed. And since the land is being handed over with no ALR rules, why would the band even entertain the thought. They would gain nothing as far as I can see, and of course a deal without the ALR land was proposed and turned down by the band a number of years ago.The NDP was government at the time. I doubt the fed would offer to reopen. There are others treaties in the pipeline and folks would holler to high heaven if a thing like a bit of land removed from the ALR, something the fed don't have in their legislation, was about to be reopened. Campbell took land and passed it along with no strings attached. So it's really time to move along. James got snookered and will have to live with it. If she remains as leader is of no interest to me. What you see as rational objections might not be the same as others think . The deal will be rubber stamped and it would take a lot of conditions to rewrite the deal.
One fellow working for the band says the band were not involved in selection of ALR way back when Barratt's Government brought it in. The band members had just as much input as the rest of the voters. If they chose not to make their voces heard, lobbied or went to the ballot box. Legislation brought in the ALR with some conditions. Those conditions ceased as Gordo included it in the treaty. My Gosh if I was a band council member I'd have jumped for joy. They won't be changing their ideas anytime soon, on the land. Check on the length of the lease. It will be for a longer time than 2009.

Any Treaty can be amended if all three parties agree, the issue is getting all three parties to agree.

Having spent some time at the negotiations, it is interesting to see how much of the bog down of the process is driven by federal-provincial bickering.

Ultimately it would likely be easier, and only marginally more expensive, to buy up sections of Richmond and raze the houses and streets (or Ladner itself)

The chances of getting this treaty reopened are pretty slim.

Let's face it, if the world wasn't increasingly interested in how good ol' Canada treats its natives, I suspect the treaty process would still be conceptual.

While the loss of a couple hundred acres of farmland is regretable, the first nation has the absolute right to use the land to it's best value, a determination they can ably reach without the perfect hindsight of non-participants.

Yes, it's frustrating to lose that soil, but it's far more frustrating, I'd have to guess, to have had to wait two centuries after contact to reach an agreement on how much land the newcomers are prepared to let you keep.

No doubt, that land will eventually be a formal part of the reserve lands, none of which are under provincial land use controls.

Besides, if farm land is all that valuable in the lower mainland, start turning your putters into plowshares, get the pesticides off those thousands green acres and make them productive.

Oh, it's ok for golfers, but not Indians.

Bleedingheart misses a key point: when the Tsawwassen First Nation takes over the 207 hectares of farmland it is exempted from some laws of the land but not others.

The Agricultural Land Reserve law - which restricts the industrial and residential development of farmland - will NOT apply. But the Criminal Code and most other legislation - like environmental regulations - WILL apply.

Secondly, the TFN is not going to "keep" the lands they get - they will sign an immediate agreement to let Deltaport build their container terminal expansion on them.

This is a sneaky BC Liberal money and development deal, using the TFN's justifiable interests in improving their conditions to remove farmland from the ALR instantly and alienate it forever in order to get industrial expansion.

If anyone doubts this plan, check the TFN's own website and look at their agreement with Vancouver Port Authority.

http://www.tsawwassenfirstnation.com/index.php

No points missed at all.

Yes of course, there is always effective rule, but the Criminal Code is federal law, provincial land title certainly will NOT. I would agree environmental law will, but only if it's federal legislation, unless a side agreement is signed allowing the province to police that jurisdiction.

I don't doubt there is another deal to flip the land on a longterm lease and I am certainly not defending it.

As unpleasent as the flip may be for a whole lot of people, the decision to take that step has or will be made by the people who were elected to represent the people who rightfully own that land.

Let's get a grip here. There are some basic human rights involved in these agreements, which, at least to me, carry as much weight as ensuring someone can grow cranberries for export to the US.

As I noted earlier, there are thousands of hectares of land within the lower Mainland doing little other than collecting golf balls that'll go far beyond replacing these 207 hectares.

What's your priority?

"As unpleasent as the flip may be for a whole lot of people, the decision to take that step has or will be made by the people who were elected to represent the people who rightfully own that land.

Let's get a grip here. There are some basic human rights involved in these agreements, which, at least to me, carry as much weight as ensuring someone can grow cranberries for export to the US."

The argument you make, bleedingheart, that the people who rightfully own this land should make the decision on its use, agriculture or housing or industry, could be made by every private farm landowner in B.C. And then there would be little if any agricultural land left in the Lower Mainland, Southern Vancouver Island, or the Okanagan Valley. That's why the ALR was created in 1973.

I find your use of the term "basic human rights" in the context of a big business plan to turn these lands into a container port backup lot to be not only disengenuous, but frankly odious.

Can you tell me whether or not any of the TFN politicos or bureaucrats have been promised lucrative executive salaries or directorships in return for getting their people to agree to turn these lands over to the port developers? Is that the real reason they cannot be expected to even consider a cash offer from the Crown that would yield as much in annual revenue to the Band as the port developers' lease fees will do?

This is an important debate - critical. Bleedingheart notes that "the decision to take that step has or will be made by the people who were elected to represent the people who rightfully own that land."

But all of BC and then some has been claimed by First Nations who believe that they "rightfully own that land." Obviously the current owners and their governments are not about to give it all up, so what happens is negotiation - and sometimes court cases like Delgamuukw that define the parameters of negotiation.

So, it is incumbent on our own non-aboriginal elected officials to represent our interests while acknowledging past injustices that must be rectified.

In my view, that means some key values like preservation of existing farmland need to be maintained for all British Columbians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal.

I am terribly disappointed when supporters of the Tsawwassen treaty say: "We screwed up before, now it's their turn. We have no right to impose conditions on their land."

Sorry, we have an obligation to impose conditions on everyone's land - farmers, first nations, developers etc. in order to maintain and improve the common good.

Bleedingheart indicates that only some federal laws would apply on the land, which is simply not true. Any law a band writes will have to meet or beat both federal and provincial laws and most BC laws will apply. Only a very few small areas will exist where a local law will supercede a higher authority. Keep that in mind should one decide not to btoher to own a provincial drivers license or a uninsured vehicle school standards will be provincial. Too bad more people don't get around to reading the agreements as tehy are developed and when the Final gets in place.And one more little point. The band and idividul memebrs will be subject to being sued and can sue when the treaty becomes law. The Tsawassen will not be a law unto it's self. Think other wise and the results will cost somebody money and hearbreak DL