Letter — Medical costs, loss of tourism must be addressed in Ajax review

Posted on November 19, 2014 in Ajax, Letters // 9 Comments

LETTER — Many of our candidates, now local politicians, our MP, MLAs and the uninformed public all take the position that the review process will settle the issue. Leave it to the proper authorities, they say; that is the only fair way.

Full review needed.

This response is the same as that of KGHM and its supporters……wait for the scientific assessment and it will address the issues in a “fulsome” manner. That is doublespeak. Scott Bailey and the review people say they can only assess what the company has submitted which, by most accounts is nominal.

The company continues to drill for ore, which changes the size and geography of the project…but that information is not included in the assessment, at least not so far and it is likely will NOT be included. That makes a mockery of the process that the people of Kamloops are expecting will resolve a thorny issue.

But if there is to be a fair review all pertinent information must be included including the new information as to recent drillings.

It seems that we need to have an assessment by professionals who are more thoughtful and eager to assess all the information available and that would include what the Ajax people plan to do about the contamination they are going to leave behind. How will they address the $6-billion potential cost to the region? How will they respond to increased medical costs, loss of tourism, student enrollments,real estate values?

The planned assessment is a sham if these important issues are not answered.

Dr. KEN BLAWATT

Kamloops

About Mel Rothenburger (11725 Articles)

ArmchairMayor.ca is a forum about Kamloops and the world. It has more than one million views. Mel Rothenburger is the former Editor of The Daily News in Kamloops, B.C. (retiring in 2012), and past mayor of Kamloops (1999-2005). At ArmchairMayor.ca he is the publisher, editor, news editor, city editor, reporter, webmaster, and just about anything else you can think of. He is grateful for the contributions of several local columnists. This blog doesn't require a subscription but gratefully accepts donations to help defray costs.

9 Comments on Letter — Medical costs, loss of tourism must be addressed in Ajax review

Pierre Filisetti // November 23, 2014 at 10:05 AM // Reply

Thanks for the links, Tyler.

LikeLike
Bill // November 20, 2014 at 12:10 PM // Reply

Come on KGHM; tell us where in the world are you mining now, like you would have to mine here, to have your Social Licence approved here?

LikeLike
dorite // November 20, 2014 at 9:47 AM // Reply

Thank you for your letter – a good reminder of the flawed process.

“Scott Bailey and the review people say they can only assess what the company has submitted …””. The so called “independent” professionals are hired and paid by Ajax, and have their work vetted thru Ajax. Will Ajax submit presentations that would be harmful to the approval they seek?

The BC EAO process is deeply flawed. We must have open public hearings; sworn evidence; ability to cross-examine presenters; and presentations/evidence by truly independent experts who are NOT on the Ajax payroll.

LikeLike
Lawrence Beaton // November 19, 2014 at 8:28 PM // Reply

Guess that we could all hug a rock or trees.

LikeLike
- Carol // November 20, 2014 at 5:55 AM // Reply
  
  Wow….what a fulsome eloquent comment! Seriously, we aren’t all destitute without Ajax now – what are you suggesting with this comment?
  
  LikeLike
Sean McGuinness // November 19, 2014 at 11:59 AM // Reply

I think if people really feel that the process is insufficient or flawed then they should, apart from protesting, prepare to take the matter to the courts. In Burnaby, they are already raising money for a legal battle in the event the pipeline thru Burnaby mt. gets the green light. Even though the Mayor and city council in Burnaby is opposed to the pipeline, it may still get approved. With this in mind, the situation in Kamloops looks even tougher. Yes, the assessment process isn’t good enough, but people have rights, and opponents should be prepared to take the matter to the courts to demand a more thorough process.

LikeLike
E D Shoemaker // November 19, 2014 at 10:21 AM // Reply

This seems like scare mongering to me. Loss of tourism? Where is the profit there, surely not for the low salaried workers in hotels, fast food gas stations. Show us where you get these figures or at least what they are.

LikeLike
- Tyler // November 20, 2014 at 9:41 AM // Reply
  
  Currently BC generates just as much if not more money from tourism then mining. In 2012, tourism generated 13.5 billion in revenue and gave. In 2013 revenue from mining was 8.4 billion to the mining industry. Of that, only 511 million was paid to the government and government agencies compared to 1.2 billion taxes paid by the tourism sector, an increase of 4.7% over the past year. In 2012 mining paid 504 million in taxes. So between 2012 and 2013 mining tax revenue increased 1.38%.
  
  I’m not saying that tourism is the be all end all, but you wanted facts on the money generated by tourism, well here you go…tourism brought in almost double the tax revenue of mining.
  
  http://www.mining.bc.ca/mining-facts
  
  http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CE8QFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.destinationbc.ca%2Fcmspages%2Fgetfile.aspx%3Fguid%3Dbff8953c-5cf8-4d1e-b718-efa5cdb52690&ei=KyZuVOChOOPNiALdloHQCg&usg=AFQjCNFiLkl82a1ImbeTTSZJDEx1hnniUA&bvm=bv.80185997,d.cGE
  
  LikeLike
- Pierre Filisetti // November 23, 2014 at 10:13 AM // Reply
  
  To E D Shoemaker:
  Beside the pointed reply from Tyler (with related, hard to refute data) it is true that tourism employees a wide verity of skill sets with commensurate salaries. Furthermore, tourism (and spin-offs) offers a myriad of opportunities to small scale entrepreneurs.
  
  LikeLike