Council wants more talk on Ajax, now
Standing-room only crowd in City council chambers today.
NEWS/ AJAX — A standing-room-only crowd got what it wanted Tuesday as Kamloops City council voted unanimously to ask for a new public comment period on the Ajax mine project.
A clearly frustrated council will also ask the provincial Environmental Assessment office to host a public information session on the approval process — now, not next year.
Coun. Donovan Cavers and Coun. Tina Lange, both opponents of the project, led the move to get a new public comment period on KGHM International’s application guidelines in view of the company radically altering its site plan.
“There is a lot of confusion with how things are unfolding,” said Cavers in making the motion.
What had been anticipated as a lengthy debate ended up being only a few minutes before his motion was approved.
A letter from the EA office proposing that a session on its approval process be put off until next year when the Ajax environment application is ready didn’t please council.
“They’re just really brushing us off in terms of coming up here,” said Coun. Ken Christian. “That’s not good enough for Kamloops,” he said, to applause from the crowd.
MORE
The discussion revolved around two separate but related items: a letter from EA project leader Scott Bailey in response to a request from council for a public session on process, and Cavers’ motion for a new public comment period arising from KGHM International’s new site plan that moves several major components of the project south of the open pit.
Bailey’s letter said he could attend a council meeting in early fall to discuss the EA process but suggested the public session asked for by council be held closer to when KGHM submits its application next year.
That’s not what council wanted, said Mayor Peter Milobar. He said council wanted a meeting on process “sooner rather than later” and “I’m a little disappointed in the response.”
“It’s quite a disappointing letter,” Cavers agreed, saying the EA should foot the bill for a public meeting. “I think we really do need to be very firm that the public education has been lacking.”
He said the Ajax project is unique because it’s so close to the city, compared to most mine projects that are in remote areas, so the EA isn’t “equipped” to deal with the level of public interest evident with Ajax.
“They need to get equipped and they need to do it very quickly.”
Coun. Marg Spina suggested council hold a meeting with the EA on process in a bigger venue, but that idea didn’t go anywhere.
Christian’s motion to ask the EA for a public information session soon to explain its process for handing the application was approved unanimously.
Council then moved on to the motion from Cavers on a new public comment period on the application information requirements, described by Coun. Arjun Singh as a “table of contents” for the application.
Cavers began by threatening to withdraw his motion if there were any outbursts from the 40 people in the audience, then read out the page-long document, the punch line of which was, “Therefore be it resolved; that Kamloops City Council officially support a new public comment period on the new Application Information Requirements document.”
“The bottom line is the people have spoken; we have heard from the community that they have something to say,” said Lange in support of Cavers’ motion.
“I liken it to a public hearing,” she said of the process. “The more eyes on this the better. It’s up to us to let the EA know… not to say we hate it or we love it.”
The unanimous vote on the motion brought more applause from the public gallery.
Kamloops Area Preservation Association spokesman John Schleiermacher praised council after the meeting.
“It’s one of the most important issues ever experienced in this city; we need public input and we thank council for doing what they did today,” he said outside council chambers. “The public needs to be involved in this process.
“What happened over the last month basically is lack of transparency… We were promised a rigorous, transparent process with public input and now it looks like, hopefully, we’re going to get it, if the B.C. Environmental Assessment office responds to this in a positive manner.”
“I think they’re listening,” he said of council. “They realize this is a very, very important project and that it’s going to impact a lot of people over the next 25 (years), or quarter century. These are our city leaders, here, we need them to stand behind the people.”
Environmentalist Tony Brummel had special praise for Christian for his remarks. “He gave us that victory,” he said.
ArmchairMayor.ca 
I thought politeness was always good, even when being firm about one’s convictions. I think we, as a council, have always focused on making the best process as robust as possible. As someone interested in public consultation and tracks developments relatively closely in the field, I think its important that public consultation sessions cater both to people who have a relatively entrenched position on the mine and those who are still deciding. I think if the public consultation opportunities get dominated by anti or pro- Ajax advocacy, that’s quite unfortunate.
Lyman, I think your comment is quite ridiculous. I respect your right to make it as I hope you will respect my right to strongly challenge what you are saying. I think you insult a large group in our community and that’s exactly what we don’t need in this discussion. I don’t feel you have one shred of evidence in backing up your assertion.
LikeLike
I think my comment is a very good comment. It is my opinion and as far as evidence goes it (evidence) does not matter.
LikeLike
No worries, Mr Singh. I wasn’t referring to you with regards to the “too polite” comment. You are correct that polite is good, but I disagree that council has to date done everything possible to encourage a more robust and engaged process.
I voted for you last election and I have followed your blog. I like the way that you try to engage the public. But this is the most important issue to me, it will definitely impact my voting in the municipal election.
LikeLike
Hi Cara! Thanks for your reply. I guess where I struggle is figuring out what more council could have done to encourage a more robust and engaged process. I’d be very open to any thoughts you have on what we could have done or could be doing.
I recognize not everybody will vote for me. I do hope I’ve demonstrated a willingness to strongly engage with the Ajax issue and an openness to all points of view. I have asked whether the public comment period after the Ajax application is submitted is as important as the comment period post application submission. That answer has been yes.
LikeLike
Interesting to (finally) hear from Ken Christian. He does realize the anti-Ajax crowd is the same crowds that does show-up and vote, whereas the other side is just too busy with the usual distractions (I.E. dirt bike not starting, Harley’s leaking oil, diesel pick-up too temperamental, etc.) to care about what’s really going on in our society/community.
November must be on his mind.
Donovan Caver is doing excellent, BTW.
LikeLike
Ridiculous and offensive. People that don’t share your view all ride dirt bikes and harleys???? And, don’t show up to vote?? Interesting perspective given that the pro mining Premier of our province was elected handily not too long ago.
LikeLike
I would like to extend credit where credit is due – thanks to all of you on city council for taking this step.
I have been disappointed with the overly cautious and “polite” behaviour of some of our council members up until now. I am glad that they are noticing some of the problems inherent in this “process” and are starting to ruffle a few feathers at the BCEAO by advocating for us.
Did they talk about the tax issue? If it takes several years to annex the mine property, should the mine and it’s annexation be approved, the city will miss out on several years of tax revenue. They also lose the mechanisms that they had previously to exert any pressure on the company on behalf of our city and citizens. This should be a red flag – if our city doesn’t have any (meager though they may be when compared to fully reckoned costs) tax benefits and little control for several years of the the project’s operational life there is little reason for the council to consider a position in support of this project, in my opinion.
I would also love to have the EAO provide a much more prominent role in providing unbiased information to the public – though this is apparently, not part of their mandate.
To leave information provision exclusively to the proponent means that the only information released is controlled by the company, their various pr people can “spin” the information before it is presented, and they completely control the timeline regarding information that is released. When Mr Lacasse joined the company he promised to release information to the council as it becomes available, but as far as I know, beyond this promise there has been very little action regarding sharing of the information from the various studies or even giving progress reports with regards to the current status of the studies that are being done.
To me, the fact that this project has been able to progress this far, without better public involvement and MEANINGFUL consultation (and consultation that is not confined strictly to the issues/rules defined under the mandate of the EAO – perhaps in a case of a major open pit mine adjacent to a city this mandate needs to be expanded) is an affront to the citizens of Kamloops. We do deserve better, and I commend Mr Christian for saying so!
LikeLike