LATEST

Councillor’s ‘Five conditions’ proposal on Ajax mine application rejected

Kamloops City council rejected a notice of motion by Coun. Denis Walsh today (Nov. 22, 2016) that asked for five conditions to be placed on the Ajax mine proposal.

In response to a question from Mayor Peter Milobar, Walsh said he still wouldn’t support the mine if the conditions were met but they would be “minimum” requirements if a permit is granted.

Be it resolved that following an extensive review and analysis of the KGHM Ajax (Ajax) Mine proposal at the edge of the City of Kamloops boundaries, the City of Kamloops has arrived at five conditions that must be adhered to.

The Ajax Mine proposal is not acceptable to the City of Kamloops unless, as a minimum, the following five conditions are met. These conditions are not intended to be an endorsement of, or support for, the permitting of the proposed Ajax Mine, but rather to protect our community in a permitting process that is largely beyond our control.

The Ajax Mine proposal will not receive support from the City of Kamloops until the following conditions are met:

  1. Formal acceptance of the Ajax Mine and associated development by local indigenous communities (Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc and the Skeetchestn Indian Band) who have land claims over the mine property.
  2. Successful completion of the formal environmental review and permitting process and inclusion of all recommendations (best available practices) related to tailings storage facilities brought forward by the provincial Mount Polley Mine Disaster Independent Expert engineering panel (e.g. dry-stack tailings storage system).
  3. Establishment of a world-class provincial oversight and enforcement agency completely independent from both the provincial Ministry of Energy and Mines and the Ministry of Environment which issue and approve mine projects, as recommended by the BC Auditor General. This independent agency will have the powers to modify production or halt mining activity if there are permit violations that threaten the health or safety of residents.
  4. Establishment of an independent monitoring agency with sufficient funding provided by the province and mine operator to monitor the environmental performance of the mine. This agency will employ a sound and concise mechanism to effectively communicate with public organizations, local governments, and oversight authorities in a timely and transparent manner (e.g. the Ekati Diamond Mine monitoring agency, minimum $800,000 annual budget).
  5. City of Kamloops to receive financial compensation which is reflective of the risks and impacts borne by City of Kamloops and affected residents. This would include:
  • Completed strategic baseline studies for property and slope stability to be included within the terms of the permits and operating conditions;

  • Strategic programming associated with mitigation measures to municipal services and infrastructure;

  • Residential property protection plan; and

  • An assessment of the costs associated with upgrading infrastructure to accommodate changed areas of growth.

Mel Rothenburger's avatar
About Mel Rothenburger (11736 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.

7 Comments on Councillor’s ‘Five conditions’ proposal on Ajax mine application rejected

  1. Yup, makes a lot of sense. Here, you do all this stuff and I still won’t support you. It is like paying a premium to someone to dig their ditch for them while they call you names. I just cannot see why this didn’t get huge support.

    Like

  2. It’s time for some accountability. If I better understood the reasoning and discussions surrounding why half the councillors voted against it, that would be extremely helpful. The article is of little value without that background being reported.

    Like

  3. Why can’t a member of Council put forward a motion for council to consider and then have it voted upon in the normal course of business.
    Kindly explain what is going on here.

    Like

    • Unknown's avatar Mel Rothenburger // November 22, 2016 at 8:43 PM // Reply

      Coun. Walsh submitted a notice of motion at the last council meeting and it came up for discussion today. Councillors Walsh, Lange, Dudy and Cavers voted in favour of it, while Councillors Spina, Christian, Singh and Mayor Milobar voted against it, so it was defeated on the tie vote.

      Like

      • Thanks Mel, who was absent from this meeting and given the importance of the business at hand why wasn’t it deferred until a full Council was present. Looks like Wallace was absent again, maybe she should resign. Good to know who voted against the motion and did any of the naysayers provide a reason for voting against this piece of business. Perhaps the Armchair Mayor can find out why each Naysayer voted against it and publish the findings; we are very interested.

        Like

      • Unknown's avatar Mel Rothenburger // November 22, 2016 at 9:38 PM //

        It’s my understanding Pat Wallace is on vacation. As for reasons for voting against it, I will explain more in an editorial on Wednesday.

        Like

Leave a reply to Graham Cancel reply