Landmark land settlement
Canada’s first modern, urban treaty gives the Tsawwassen First Nation control of its land and the chance at a prosperous future
The hat tip goes to Damien Gillis who alerted me to this in depth analysis which includes his video of Bertha Williams, which I linked to some time ago.
This treaty was driven by the Gateway process - not any concern for the TFN. The collapse of the US dollar ought to be the danger signal that makes the port start to doubt its forecasts. The airport has a much more prgamatic approach - it does not start the next stage of expansion until the demand is clear, and is very reluctant to attach dates to projects in their plan. They expand at need, not on a whim.
I have also been noting here how the flawed environmental assessment and the cavalier rush to construction will have a dramatic effect on the Pacific Flyway and the feeding grounds of the sandpipers. Given this government’s shabby record on issues like farmed salmon and the Sea to Sky don’t expect much noise from our designated environmental agencies where the staff are more concerned with hanging on to their pay cheques than actually doing anything effective. At one time professional public servants acted in the best interests of the province. Now they are little better than lackeys to their political masters.
Well worth spending some time on the in depth coverage.
Water ‘highway’ could take trucks off Metro’s roads
I did not go to the Metro Vancouver sustainable growth and the economy public dialogue yesterday. The panel was different to the one I did go to at West Vancouver. But what really surprises me is that Randy Shore did go to Surrey. The press has not been at many of these meetings in that past, so far as I am aware. And so was Brian Lewis of the Province who has this wonderful quote from Gordon Price
“Can someone give me an example where this kind of road has worked elsewhere?” he said.
“We’re spending a billion dollars on a road without any working examples of success [elsewhere], yet when we’ve made commitments to build rail systems we have seen the benefits.”
He quipped: “It’s curious that when we know it doesn’t work, we do it, but when we know it does work, then we don’t do it.”
Darn, wish I’d said that.
The road he was referring to is the South Fraser Perimeter Road, and the idea is that if the containers were moved by barge instead of truck, then we would not need this road.
The plan to load containers on to barges is not of course new and has been discussed here before - though the mention of Hope is new. Up until now I had expected that the ecological significance of the gravel reach would have been a block to navigation by large barges this far upstream.
“Most of what we need to make this happen is there already,” Badger told The Sun. The highway — in this case the Fraser River — and the railroad tracks run side by side all the way to Hope.
What isn’t there of course are the terminal facilities. And proposals by the port to buy up land along the river front for terminals are already a cause for concern among the local communities.
The cost of transferring containers more than once — from deep-sea vessels to short-haul vessels and then to trucks or rail — in their trip from port to market has been prohibitive until now.
As the cost of transport goes up “it makes this kind of operation much more viable,” Badger said.
But it still does not make any sense at all. The container terminals all have rail access. And the plan for the expansion of Deltaport is to add even more rail. So for long distance shipments across North America, most of the containers taken off ships go onto trains at the marine terminal. This can also happen at Surrey Fraser Docks where the container cranes have now been standing idle for some time. In fact at Deltaport I have never seen all the cranes in use at once. This is not, of course, a scientific study but casual observation suggests that at the moment there is a lot of spare capacity. The Burrard inlet terminals are all rail connected too, of course - though a sneaky suspicion lurks in my mind that they could be very desirable redevelopment sites.
Now I have heard it said that CN Intermodal does operate trucks between Deltaport, Vanterm and its Thornton yard. Quite why that would be cheaper than running trains I have no idea. Perhaps it is something to do with the CN/CP agreements on track use.
The big deal that generates truck movement is the volume of traffic that gets resorted here. Imported containers are stripped of their contents, and the goods reloaded onto other containers or trailers for onward transmission by companies like Hudson’s Bay and Canadian Tire. Very few stores need an entire container full of rubber duckies, so the trailers carry a variety of goods from various sources. It is this activity that generates so many truck movements as it is very poorly co-ordinated, with a lot of movement of empty equipment. If that could be combined at one site with packing containers for export there is a real potential for savings. But double handling full containers, to load them onto trains up the valley just adds cost and delay to what can be done now - putting them on to trains at the port.
Many of the approximately 50 attendees were exasperated by the expansion of the car and truck based road system when the region is trying to encourage denser residential growth and promote transit.
More highway capacity without tolls will encourage more sprawl, more driving and more pollution, speakers complained.
Well at least he did report it, even if it was buried at the bottom of the article.
David Fields on the Livable Region blog has these observations
Environment Canada has requested that an alternative scenario on the same scale as the current Gateway scheme be developed that would meet the same goals of moving people and goods but could possibly have a lesser impact on our environment. We here at the LRC have been clamouring for the same. The Minister of Highways has so far refused to do so, claiming that his Gateway is the only option that will work. It is interesting that highway schemes everywhere else have failed. Even after these few years when we have seen the public switch on climate change and the Premier’s response with the Carbon Tax and promised future action, the details of Gateway have not changed in kind. Well, not entirely true- the price has gone up.
A re-think of Gateway is long overdue. There is an incredible amount of expertise and determination in this region that would enable us to realize a vision of moving people and goods while lessening our impact on the natural environment and enhancing our communities. A process of developing a full scale Greenway to replace Gateway could be undertaken swiftly and would be cost effective. The obstacle, of course, is the extreme arrogance of this current government.
True scale of C02 emissions from shipping revealed
Another day, another revelation that knocks the Gateway.
This one is reported in The Guardian.
The true scale of climate change emissions from shipping is almost three times higher than previously believed, according to a leaked UN study seen by the Guardian.
It calculates that annual emissions from the world’s merchant fleet have already reached 1.12bn tonnes of CO², or nearly 4.5% of all global emissions of the main greenhouse gas.
(I will forgive the typesetter but that should be a subscript 2 not a superscript 2)
The first thing I thought was that if they got the CO2 wrong, they probably got the local air contaminants wrong too - since I think what is happening here is that they underestimated how much oil is being burned.
The UN report also reveals that other pollutants from shipping are rising even faster than CO² emissions. Sulphur and soot emissions, which give rise to lung cancers, acid rain and respiratory problems are expected to rise more than 30% over the next 12 years.
Again that would be called sulphur oxides and particulates here. And the California Air Resources Board has determined that diesel particulate is a human carcinogen
The health implications of shipping emissions are most acute for Britain and other countries bordering the English Channel, one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes. A recent peer-reviewed study of shipping emissions found world shipping led directly to 60,000 deaths a year.
And of course the Fraser Valley, where the off shore breezes ensure that the soot and sulphur from the stacks of those freighters will waft up the valley and get trapped around Hope.
I do not recall seeing any of the environmental assessment of the port expansion. I do recall hearing that it failed but proceeded anyway. Which, of course, is what you expect in business friendly BC. Much more important that we get some more containers diverted through here instead of Oakland or Seattle, than we reduce the risk of people who live here from diseases like asthma, emphysema, lung cancer or COPD. In fact as an economist I might even work out a few sums. How does the profit from a few more container ships stack up against the increased health care costs and loss of productive work time?
I find the economic arguments in favour of port expansion less than compelling. There actually is not really a lot of new employment or a great deal of new net revenue - and labour shortages here mean that we might think twice about a strategy that depends on finding new truck drivers - since there aren’t enough of those already. But the environmental balance sheet is only negative - even before this new information came to light. Do we really need to poison ourselves just so the Vancouver Port Authority senior staff and Board Members can have bigger pay packets?
‘I’m saying don’t build this highway’ near bog
One of the scientific experts on an advisory panel for management of Burns Bog has presented perhaps the strongest argument yet that the controversial proposal for a $1-billion South Fraser Perimeter Road is located in the wrong place.
John Jeglum, a retired Victoria professor and acknowledged global expert on peatland ecology, dropped his bombshell Friday.
He released a position paper that outlines the scientific advisory panel’s grave concerns over Victoria’s intention to build part of the 40-kilometre, four-lane truck freeway along the western and northern borders of Burns Bog, the huge ecological reserve in Delta that’s often described as the “lungs of the Lower Mainland.”
The highway would accommodate increased container truck traffic from an expanded Deltaport.
Jeglum’s highly critical assessment of potential damage to Burns Bog follows an earlier report in which Environment Canada expressed similar concerns.
Just in case Budd Campbell is not clear on my position I would say do not build this highway. Period.
I do not believe that there will be increased container truck traffic - or that there needs to be. I think imports from China will not continue to increase at the rate they have in recent years. I expect the decline in the US economy to be prolonged and severe - and I do not see yet another tax cut doing anything at all to restore confidence. That will affect us too, sooner or later. At the same time US ports are becoming more competitive - our rising dollar will quickly eliminate savings due to shorter sailing times. The new Panama Canal and the opening of the North West Passage will also impact shipping patterns. And Prince Rupert can take more traffic if needs be.
Roberts Bank is as quiet as the grave today. How it can be argued that a port which works on a five day, 8 hour shift pattern needs expansion defeats me.
The environmental argument is very strong indeed. But then it was when the port was last expanded too and the Tswawassen saw their major traditional food source eliminated. If the SFPR goes ahead then BC will have to confess that it has ignored a significant environmental impact for almost no measurable benefit to the province as a whole.
Container port in Mission?
This item is from Ron Coreau. He originally submitted it as a comment to “Free Ride” but I think it deserves its own space. Thanks Ron!
I thought I would pass this along because I think this news article is symbolic of planning in the Lower Mainland and really points to the need for a mechanism that supports regional planning. The Fraser Ports plan was discovered by a community group trying to monitor the Genstar plan to build a community for 40,000 people in the Silverdale region of Mission.
Ron
New information causes concern
By Carol Aun - Mission City Record - December 20, 2007Council would not have forwarded an application to remove property in Silverdale from the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) last month if it had the information it has now.
Councillors debated removing the properties located at 30302 and 30313 Cooper Ave. from the ALR at the Nov. 19 meeting, and voted 4-3 to forward the application to the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC), reasoning that the land floods every year during the spring freshet, and some say can’t be farmed.
“At the time, council was not made aware the federal authority might purchase the land and put a container port there, if it was out of the ALR,” said Councillor Jenny Stevens. “If we had that information, it would’ve affected our conversation.”
At the last council meeting Monday night, councillors received information from the Neighbourhood Plan Advisory Committee that Fraser Ports has made an offer on the property, subject to it being removed from the ALR.
Establishing a container port here would decrease truck traffic in Metro Vancouver, but would increase truck traffic in Mission.
“All the truck traffic would be on this side of the river,” said Stevens.
Since a procedure bylaw prevents council from reconsidering the motion for six months, council will send a letter to the ALC outlining its concern.
Council is also asking staff to prepare a report detailing the implications of municipal land purchased by a federal authority.
Stevens says she’s concerned municipal laws will be overruled, and she also requested a meeting with MP Randy Kamp to discuss the issue.
The Silverdale Neighbourhood Plan Advisory Committee discussed removing the subject land from the ALR at its last meeting Nov. 29, and opposed to the move.
According to the minutes of the meeting, having a container port in Silverdale would be “devastating for this project commercially, and for the land.”
The southwest urban reserve area residential development is under a lot of scrutiny, and the scrutiny should apply to the entire area as well in order to plan an “excellent community,” states the report.
Gateway Consultation Process
There are currently open houses being held around the region as part of the Environmental Assessment process. There has been some discussion on the lrc-general list as to whether it is worthwhile participating
…from my point of view (and I have a Ph. D. in Community & Regional Planning and have taught Planning, Development and Policy for three years at SFU’s Urban Studies Masters Program, currently teaching Urban Sustainable Development there), the public consultation process of the MoT has been nothing but a sham. There is a classic “ladder of citizen participation” designed by Sherry Arnstein to evaluate degrees of citizen participation in public processes that I and many instructors of planning use to illustrate democratic public process. On this ladder Kevin Falcon’s MoT’s Process falls on the bottom step of the ladder (which Arnstein calls manipulation and non-participation). In the ministry’s own words, “from letters, petitions or other submissions that only state a position for or against a given project cannot generally be considered”. Thus, we as citizens have no real participation in making a decision NOT to approve this Gateway Project, but merely to comment on improving or adding bike lanes or slightly shifting on or off ramps, etc. As I said, what a sham! However, I do think people should go to the open houses and tell them what a sham this process is, and what a shame for democracy. So, I am going to do that myself at the Vancouver Open House on Tuesday, 5-9 PM at the Italian Cultural Centre.
Mike Carr
I cannot say I agree with Mike that going to these affairs does any good. It is not about should the project go ahead as Falcon has said that it is a “done deal”. That deal excluded anyone who might have a legitimate interest in it except those who stood to profit from it. The Deltaport expansion is not part of the process either, even though that is said to be one of the drivers for both Port Mann 2 and the South Fraser Perimeter Road. In fact, it is clear now that part of the SFPR is to be funded by the PM2 tolls! Not only that but the Liberals out manoeuvred the opposition by tying the port expansion into the Tsawassen Treaty proposal. Now no-one could argue that the TFN need a treaty - after all the first stage of the port expansion destroyed their traditional way of life with no compensation. And we have not had much progress in the treaty process to date, so understandably Carol James did not want the NDP to oppose it. Even though the process has been highly suspect to say the least.
When the consultation process is so clearly flawed, we should not participate in it, because that lends the thing credibility that it does not deserve. I will not take part, but I will be part of the protests next weekend. And I hope you will be too. Because when they patronize and marginalize us - and set up bogus “astroturf” groups to appear to speak for the proposal and run ludicrously obvious biased “surveys” - we have no other course of action than to turn to protest. Which is, in human history, the only way that progressive change has ever been brought about. Resistance stopped the freeway through Chinatown and downtown. It will stop this one too.
Debacle in Delta
It will destroy what is left of the fish habitat and the bird flyway. The original port failed its environmental review but got built anyway. This expansion will actually use land that originally was supposed to mitigate the original development. And it will probably not be needed.
Rafe Mair in fine form
Communities under threat: MP
The MP is John Cummings and the threat is the Gateway program.
Increased rail traffic resulting from the controversial Asia Pacific Gateway Corridor project will deteriorate local quality of life and cause real estate prices to plummet, he predicts.
“I think we’re at crunch time here for our community,” Cummins said. “If people don’t stand up and start to scream and holler, they’re going to be awful sorry.
Now Cummings appears to be the first politician who has noticed that freight from the port goes mainly by rail. It has nothing much to do with trucking - which of course knocks out most of the justification that the province (and the BCTA) has made for the South Fraser Perimeter Road and the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge and widening of Highway #1.
“I’m not opposed to the port growing,” Cummins added, “but I’m saying let’s do it right. Let’s not destroy our communities so the Port of Vancouver can be the biggest port in wherever.”
In which case I think he is increasingly out of step with his constituents who are beginning to wonder why it is so important that Vancouver grab a larger share of the North American transpacific trade. Especially since most of it is destined for the US. Given that our ports have a tax advantage - US ports have to pay a lot of money to their local communities - exactly why do we want to subsidize US shippers and consumers? The people who live around the major Pacific Ports like Long Beach are increasingly restive about the amount of air pollution they get from trains, trucks and ships. Why do we have to take that from them?
I can understand that strategically we need ports on Canada’s west coast to handle our trade. I just wonder why we need them to handle other peoples. And I suspect that the Americans will have similar thoughts. And just as they did not stand still while we cornered the cruise ship traffic to Alaska, they will not lie down as we expand here and Prince Rupert. I think we are going to end up with a lot of spare port capacity, some redundant rail trackage, and a lot of very heavily congested roads full of commuters - not trucks.
The Tsawassen Treaty Process
A dissenting voice is raising serious concerns about how the Province of BC is seeking to influence the key vote of the Tsawassen First Nation on the treaty that would make port expansion possible.
A substantive piece from the Province newspaper - the only one that prints on Sunday. It’s a tabloid but it gave Bertha Williams’ letter to the Premier and the Prime Minister some prominence. And Damien Gillis has produced a short video so that Bertha’s own voice can be heard.
There is definitely something not right about a process which first of all still has some court proceedings under way after the privatization of the rail spur that is crucial to the plan had to be stopped, because of a corrupted process. And now the province getting involved in using public funds to try to make sure it gets the vote it wants.
The idea that BC needs to secure a greater percentage of the cross pacific container trade is itself dubious. But the lengths to which the BC Liberals seem to be going to ensure that they get what they want leaves a nasty taste. The original Roberts Bank terminal put an end to the TFN’s traditional way of life. The environmental impact of this new expansion - removing the mitigative measures put in place to lessen the impact of the existing port facilities, seems to make a bad situation worse. And it is hard to see that the economic benefits for BC as a whole - or even the region - are worth this kind of impact.
Bertha Williams on TFN Vote (from the LRC General email list) updated July 19, 2007
The hand of skullduggery is at play. The chief and council of our band are bouncing around like rabbits after a carrot on a string that the federal and provincial governments are dangling. They use such trickery as an enrollment application? In order to vote on the treaty. In the application
is a section where we have to relinquish our right to claim. If we don’t enroll, we are not allowed to vote. This would pave the way for a more secure “yes” vote. This is an infringement on our sovereignty as first nation people. Our native status is handed down by our forefathers, which I
do not believe may be voted on by other band members, may not be bartered by a treaty team, or taken by any government. Our birthright has to be surrendered by the holder. If this is not true, then why do they resort to such extortion tactics as to blackmail the native population out of their
unique status. Once this is proven, and the treaty is pushed through, then it will not be worth the paper it is written upon. Past and present governments realize we are the true owners of the lands where our ancestors thrived. What better way to usurp the people of their position then to
utilize the greed or ignorance of our leaders. Which ever it may be, it shows gross incompetence and they should be immediately removed from office.
Another scheme in their bag of tricks from the Tsawwassen First Nation, to witness first hand the prosperous Nisga’a Agreement. One should only imagine the perfect picture that will be painted. What they will not show is that after seven years of treaty, 70 to 80% of the Nisga’a people are on
social assistance. And, that the young men have to travel from their homeland, as far away as Calgary in search of employment. Also, will not speak of pending lawsuits and investigations of the misappropriation and mismanagement of funds. So much for prosperity at home! Now the Nisga’a descendants may look forward to possible expropriation when the tax kicks in
next year, and is in full swing 12 years from their signing in 2000. The Tsawwassen treaty will only ensure the demise of our people, where the fat cats have been feeding for the past 14 years of negotiations. To enable an extra jingle in the deep pockets of the already rich. The Tsawwassen treaty wished us to surrender our traditional territory, our right to claim from
our inheritable status, and for that we will receive 0.2% of our lands and have the opportunity to pay taxes on our own lands. Something sure stinks with this deal! Speaking to a TFN elder she said “the treaty is a short term gain for a long time misery!” They may shove this treaty down our
throats today with their conniving schemes, but tomorrow our case will be proven that they never had the authority to bargain away our birthright. Accountability will be made to the aboriginal peoples and the healing process will begin.Yours truly,
Bertha Williams
(604)943-9470
