EDITORIAL – Fortunately, to council, scrutiny of Ajax is still important
Grassland area that will become tailings pond under Ajax plan. (File photo)
An ArmchairMayor editorial by Mel Rothenburger.
KAMLOOPS CITY council stood tall on Tuesday when faced with a prickly political challenge, and kudos are in order.
After KGHM refused to pay another $200,000 for an independent review of its Ajax application, council revisited the question of whether or not to complete the study that was started with the $300,000 KGHM initially contributed.
Keep in mind, the recommendation from City staff all along was that the $200,000 be taken from general reserve to make sure the study gets finished. It was council that came up with the idea of asking KGHM to donate the money instead.
Spending money is always tricky because taxpayers are always sensitive about how that money is spent. Yet when it came up at Tuesday’s council meeting, council was unanimous that the study must be completed.
The reasons for it are sound. An independent review of the most controversial and game-changing project in the history of the city makes total sense. To abandon a study halfway through would make no sense at all.
As Mayor Peter Milobar pointed out, council was originally ready to spend the first $300,000 on its own. The fact KGHM put up the money was a bonus.
How could this issue ever be resolved if that money was wasted and the study left unfinished, questions left unanswered?
Let us remind you of something KGHM said last March, even though initial SLR Consultants comments were critical of the application. Robert Koopmans, senior communications strategist for the Ajax project, offered assurances that KGHM welcomes a thorough review.
“The City contracted SLR to perform an independent review of the Application. KGHM was pleased to provide $300,000 to make it happen, because we are committed to having the most thorough and robust environmental assessment possible.… Such intense scrutiny is what an environmental assessment is all about.… We don’t want anything overlooked; we want every potential effect assessed, every assumption questioned, every piece of the data scrutinized, and every methodology and calculation reviewed.”
What happened to change that? Is the “most thorough and rubust” review not quite as important to KGHM as it was back then? Is it not quite as important that every potential effect be assessed and “every piece of data scrutinized”?
Fortunately, for council, it is still important. It still matters that residents receive every possible answer to every possible question. Good for council.
Got an opinion? Leave a comment or write us a letter.
ArmchairMayor.ca 
If KGHM and the City made an Agreement they need to honour that Agreement…Mel’s article doesn’t address that so no value add
I worked at Afton around 1980…this site is similar…what are the environmental concerns?
LikeLike
Are they going to spend money until they get a study that says they are right? Is the province not doing a study? Are the feds doing a study? I think someone found a mark.
LikeLike
Bankable feasibility must submitted and approved for truth and sustainability by gov’t before anr environmental assessment is undertaken.In this case no sustained profitable study was ever undertaken.It’s all been nothing more than a gamble so far and our entire community has suffered because of it
LikeLike
SRS knows that dealing with the City is carte blanche for excessive billing and Council on this one thought they had a sugar daddy in AJAX so who cares the cost. Fun fun fun ’til Daddy takes the T-Bird away.
LikeLike
Mel,
What you have said is true because of the way things progressed in this Ajax debate.
If we could only back up the bus, to the first time the words “Zero Harm” were issued. It would be the first and only mine on earth that would produce “zero harm”. The process should have ground to a screeching halt right there!
Has it been “smoke and mirrors” ever since? Perhaps yes, perhaps no.
On that basis alone, our Mayor and our members of Council should have found it very easy to vote and state “NO” simply on the claim that this would be a ‘zero harm’ mine.
It would have saved a lot of grief and division in our city. It would not have put anyone in the position of feeling they had to accept $300K to do a study. Was that “blood money” as I heard one person say? Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn’t. But, look at the position in which the Mayor and Council have found themselves.
Common sense should have governed leadership a long time ago.
LikeLike
If a contractor told me something would cost $300k and then came back to me for an additional $200k I would have a lot of questions. Including if that contractor was even competent to begin with.
LikeLike
The scope of the work did change from the original “get-go”.
LikeLike
An important detail that’s very telling. Who do we make life-long joyous relationship with? With people who fulfill their promises.
LikeLike