A fly on the wall reports in from the 28th floor

The week in review, sort of:

A TOURIST IN KAMLOOPS: The events presaging federal environment minister Peter Kent’s après-visit proclamation on the Ajax mine this week — the City council vote last October to ask for a federal panel review, the initial opposition to it by both the mayor and MP, the TNRD’s support of council, the Dec. 1 delegation to see Kent in Ottawa — are familiar to readers.

It is entirely possible, just as it’s possible there’s life on other planets, that after the delegation trudged up the snowy steps to the Environment Canada offices in Gatineau across the river from Parliament Hill two months ago, there was a serious, productive discussion about the possibility of a federal panel review on Ajax.

Senator Nancy Greene-Raine was there, too; so was TNRD director Ronaye Elliot and environment staffers.

“Mr. Minister,” the MP and mayor might have said, settling into the comfortable chairs in Kent’s offices on the 28^th floor overlooking the Ottawa River, “though we don’t think much of the idea ourselves, we are here to urge you on behalf of Kamloops to give proper consideration to a federal panel review on this highly divisive issue.

”Please pay no mind to our previously stated opinions on the matter, nor to the fact that your provincial counterpart Terry Lake is against it. And please set aside, for the time being, your own public comments that you see no need for it.”

“Ms. McLeod, Mr. Mayor,” Kent might have replied, “I will keep an open mind, pay a visit to Kamloops at the first opportunity, go on a walkabout, talk to the locals, and only then make a decision.”

And, in due course, Kent flew into town this week, looked, talked, and on the verge of boarding his plane, experienced clarity — he could not in good conscience order the panel review supported by City council, all regional district directors, and several environment groups and affected land owners.

It’s possible.

MOTHER CORP LIVES: Some reassurance on the question of whether CBC really will set up a studio and do live programming in Kamloops arrived in my in-box this week.

A week ago, you will remember, CBC’s B.C. director of programming Lorna Haeber expressed confidence everything remains on track for spring despite the hullaballoo about the feds being anxious to do some slashing and burning on the public broadcaster’s inflated budget.

She acknowledged that a site in the downtown core has been selected (a topic of some speculation hereabouts as to its exact address) and a producer has been hired, but she couldn’t confirm details of where or who.

Well, we can confirm that the producer is Rob Polson and that the announcement of his hiring was made internally last month, in CBC Vancouver’s own newsletter. It came under “staffing announcements” and reveals this:

“Rob Polson has accepted the position of producer of the new CBC Radio morning show that will launch next spring in Kamloops. This is the first hire for the new bureau, and Rob’s experience will lead what will eventually be a four-person team.… Rob worked as a news anchor and producer at CFJC in Kamloops back in the ‘80s (sic; it was the ‘90s). Rob will begin his new job in February or March of next year….”

mrothenburger@kamloopsnews.ca

We’re asking the wrong questions about Ajax

Enviro minister Peter Kent and MP Cathy McLeod. (Daily News photo)

Armchair Mayor column, The Kamloops Daily News, Sept. 26, 2012.

Federal environment minister Peter Kent came, he saw and he went yesterday.

He met with local groups, toured the Ajax minesite and some of the surrounding area, and boarded his airplane.

In due course, he announced that he found and heard nothing during his day in Kamloops to change his mind about ordering a federal panel review, and so it will all be left to the federal-provincial process favoured by B.C. Environment Minister Terry Lake.

MP Cathy McLeod, who didn’t want a panel review, then did, is now fine without one. While in her “give us a panel review” mode awhile back, she stated two reasons one is needed: “clear federal jurisdiction coupled with significant public concern for a panel process.”

“Public concern” is undeniable. Anybody who claims not to have an opinion has been on an extended trip to the moon or is afraid to express it.

The debate over Ajax centres on jobs versus the environment, with a dash of Aberdeen lifestyle thrown in. If the ultimate decision on Ajax is to be made on that basis, jobs will win easily.

During last year’s civic election campaign, I asked candidates to define what they meant by lines like “getting all the facts” and “we must wait for the environmental review.”

Some of them did — almost none was elected. I would ask the same question now of those at either end of the debate: where do you draw the line?

Because I’m about as sure as eggs is eggs that all those fancy environmental reports will confirm what we already know — that we’ll lose a lake, a big patch of grassland and some wildlife. And they’ll say health worries can be alleviated.

And that those who support the mine will conclude that, alrighty then, there are, by official count, three million lakes in Canada and we’ll do fine with 2,999,999.

And that we can afford to lose a few endangered badgers, toads and sapsuckers that rely on the Ajax site for their existence.

After all, we are going to get jobs and taxes and royalties.

The other side of the argument will say we simply can’t sell out even a bit of our cherished environment for the sake of a few more paycheques.

And nothing will change. All the graphs, charts, photos, drawings, plans, wind studies, dust studies, noise studies, hydro studies and pamphlets in the world will change nothing about “public concern.”

One side will win; one will lose.

But is it possible, in our focus on studies and processes, that we’re asking the wrong question?

Because, does it not, all come down to the fact that this mine is going to be within two kilometres from town as the crow flies, not 10 or 20 kilometres out in the forest?

I think it does. I think it’s about whether a mine on our back step is the vision we have for Kamloops. Whether that fits with who we are, what we do, what we want our city to look like for the rest of our lives and the lives of our children and grandchildren.

Some will say yes, some no. But let’s get over all this angst about noise and dust and rare turtles and $30-an-hour jobs and talk about how we see our city.

That’s what Peter Kent should be thinking about, too.

mrothenburger@kamloopsnews.ca

Cavers has right to express his opinions

Armchair Mayor column published in The Kamloops Daily News, Jan. 24, 2012.

In his very first column for The Daily News, Coun. Donovan Cavers has managed to stir up a pretty big nest of hornets.

Cavers is one of several City councillors who will take a turn at writing for us in our Monday editions, and he kicked things off yesterday with a few swings at Ajax — and he pulled no punches.

Basically, he told KGHM to stay in Poland and its partner Abacus to stay out of town.

“And so I say to mine proponent spokesperson Jim Whittaker, ‘Drive safely as you return to your home as the Coquihalla is icy. But please, I’d rather you didn’t return to our community,’” Cavers summed up.

Which brought some swift reaction by phone and on our website. One caller said Cavers’ criticism of the project’s ownership amounts to being “against Polish people.”

Another caller suggested, “the Kamloops Daily News should be ashamed for running it.”

On the web, a reader wrote, “Shame on The Daily News, shame on Mel Rothenburger, and shame on Donovan Cavers.”

“Wow! This tripe from a sitting councillor,” wrote another. “Who voted for this guy?”

“Stick to your day job Donovan,” advised yet another. “You may not be a great councillor, but you are definitely an awful writer. The mayor should be disappointed in himself for giving you permission to write this drivel.”

“This is so juvenile,” concluded another.

It should surprise no one that Cavers opposes the mine project; he made that clear during the election campaign. What’s surprising is the vehemence of the reaction.

An Ajax proponent could take any one of his list of reasons opposing the mine and refute it with the opposite opinion. Because that’s what it is, opinion.

(Cavers acknowledges to having been corrected yesterday on one of his points, the one in which he says that “no mine this size has EVER been excavated in Canada within 10 kilometers of a municipality’s outer limits.” He should have inserted a reference to “healthy community,” he says.)

Other points made by Cavers — such as the abortive plan by Ajax officials to meet privately with candidates during November’s civic election, aren’t new. Some people thought that would have been beneficial to the candidates, some didn’t.

If anything else is surprising about Cavers’ debut, it’s that he used such plain language in stating his case. Politicians who write columns for newspapers tend toward being diplomatic for fear of losing votes the next time they stand for re-election. An argument can be made that candor isn’t an entirely bad attribute for a politician.

Will other councilors do likewise? Maybe, or not — the purpose of inviting members of council to write columns for us is to provide information on the workings of City Hall, as well as to express opinions on matters of interest.

In Cavers’ case, he went for it, but the point is, he was providing his own views and those views are open to being refuted by anyone who wishes to do so.

The invitation to councillors wasn’t restricted to expressing opinions that agree with mine or yours, or to topics we deem worthy.

Cavers offered his honestly held opinion. And he certainly got everyone’s attention.