ROTHENBURGER — Advisory group on Ajax should have broad representation

COLUMN — I’m afraid I can’t agree with those who don’t think the Kamloops Exploration Group should be allowed to sit on the Community Advisory Group looking into the KGHM Ajax mine project.

We could call it the KEG ‘n’ CAG question.

The exploration group wants Perry Grunenberg to represent it on the advisory committee, which is made up of interested community stakeholder groups. Grunenberg, a geologist and KEG’s vice president, is an unabashed supporter of the mining industry, questioning the “continued alteration of facts” of Ajax opponents such as the Kamloops Area Preservation Association and Kamloops Physicians for a Healthy Environment.

If the latter group, and the TRU human rights committee, are to be allowed in, why not KEG, which has a long history of promoting education about mining in the Kamloops region and the province? The CAG is already well populated with environmentalists, though there are several community associations on it as well. It could use another viewpoint.

I’m not a fan of Ajax, as you may know, but neither am I a fan of how the advisory committee functions. The advisory committee works in a self-imposed fog, having decided early on it wouldn’t allow press or public to sit in on its meetings. Maybe a voice from the other side of the debate would open things up a bit.

To be fair, of course, KAPA has argued in favour of opening the meetings but the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office, which created the group to gather community input, hasn’t encouraged it.

KAPA has also long argued it has trouble getting information from KGHM Ajax on details of the mine’s feasibility study. Would the presence of a mining proponent such as Grunenberg perhaps shed some light, maybe encourage KGHM to provide more of the information the group wants?

Opponents worry about air quality, noise, water, dust, the future of Jacko Lake, possible impacts on the Peterson Creek water shed, the loss of wildlife. Why not have somebody at the table who’s willing to argue those points from the other side?

There’s an old piece of wisdom that says it’s better to have those who oppose something in the room with you than outside throwing eggs and mud. Put more bluntly, it’s wise to keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

More importantly, there’s also an old saying that facts are friendly. The facts, in this case, may depend on your perspective, but the public can only benefit from having both sides in that room together. It would be better yet, of course, if the public was allowed to listen in on what they’re talking about — an advocate for a particular point of view should never be afraid to have his or her beliefs challenged, in an open forum.

My understanding of the role of the CAG is to present the concerns of the public, to ask the tough questions. Who’s to say a mining advocacy group doesn’t represent a legitimate public viewpoint, that it doesn’t have tough questions of its own, that it doesn’t seek the facts as much as anyone else, that it’s not capable of respectful and useful dissent?

Is KEG late to the game? Sure, but these guys are quick studies and, besides, the process has a considerable way to go. KEG is hardly starting from back in the gate while everyone else is in the home stretch.

“Through the respectful sharing of sound facts and information, all British Columbians can learn about, and benefit from, modern mineral exploration and mine development,” Grunenberg wrote in a letter to the editor a couple of years ago.

What’s wrong with having that viewpoint argued in the context of a stakeholder group that’s supposed to be searching out the facts about Ajax?

Mel Rothenburger can be contacted at armchairmayor@gmail.com. He’s also on facebook.com/mel.rothenburger.7 and on Twitter @MelRothenburger.