30-75-75 review for Ajax nixed

NEWS/ AJAX — Phew! After spending quite some time trying to figure out what a notice of motion from Coun. Cavers on the timeline for reviewing the Ajax environmental permit application actually meant, council voted it down anyway.

Cavers wanted council Tuesday to ask the provincial government for changes to the review timetable to give the public more time to study the application and comment on it, and government bureaucrats less time to review it.

The motion, which Cavers gave notice of at the last meeting, asked that a letter be sent to the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office asking that the 75-day public comment period not occur at the beginning of the 180-day total review period, so that the public would have more time to look at it.

The public comment period is normally 30 days but that’s been changed to 75. Cavers explained that he didn’t want people to have to “scramble” to read the estimated 15,000-20,000-page document, expected to be submitted in June.

“I think having it right in the middle would be ideal but definitely not at the very beginning.”

Mayor Peter Milobar figuratively scratched his head over the timetable Cavers proposed. The normal 180-day period includes 30 days for a public review and 150 days for a technical review. Instead, he said, the public period is 75 days and the government’s review 105 days. Was Cavers asking that the 75 days be longer, or that the 180 days be longer?

Cavers thought there should be 50 government days before the public’s 75 days and 50 government days after.

City development services director Jenn Fretz was also trying to figure out the intent of the motion. The reason the 75 days is set near the beginning of the 180 days is so administrative work can be done after public comments are received, she said.

Milobar was concerned that while Cavers’ motion might give the public more time to consider the report, it wouldn’t give the government enough time.

“I want to see a balance between the public’s ability to give meaningful comment and the EAO’s ability to review those comments,” said Cavers.

Walsh proposed an amendment to Cavers’ motion that the timetable be based on 30-75-75 so the public comment period would be 105 days in total. The amendment was defeated.

“I’m a little bit conflicted by it, because we need to get this thing done,” Coun. Arjun Singh said of Cavers’ main motion. “I would be more inclined to this if the application had changed drastically from what we’ve seen before… I want the community to have some certainty as to when this thing is going to end.”

Coun. Ken Christian warned against “messing around” with the environmental assessment process. He said opponent groups could “divvy up” the report among themselves to read it within the stated timeline. “At the end of the day there has to be a decision on this thing.”

Coun. Dieter Dudy, who opposes Ajax, thought 75 days is enough for public study “whether it’s the beginning, the middle or the end.”

In the end, the main motion was also defeated, with Cavers, Walsh and Coun. Tina Lange the only ones in favour. Milobar and councillors Pat Wallace, Marg Spina, Singh, Christian and Dudy were opposed.

Cavers also questioned whether a letter from KGHM about its plans for “plain language” version of the studies that will be part of its permit application should have been included on the council agenda. Cavers said there was previous agreement that pro and con letters on the issue wouldn’t be put on agendas.

Milobar replied that he’d put it there because of Cavers’ notice of motion, and that he didn’t want to be accused of being biased.