The Kamloops Mayor's motion to delay projects now before Council looks, at first glance, like a financial decision. It proposes pausing the Kamloops Centre for the Arts and the arena multiplex, citing economic uncertainty, long-term debt, and the upcoming 2026 election.
But the deeper issue is how Council responds—and whether that response is visible to the public.
A Pattern Council Has Yet to Explain
Recent meetings reveal a pattern that deserves attention.
When the Mayor introduces a motion, some Council members remain silent. They do not second the motion, which prevents it from reaching the floor for debate.
That is not a minor procedural detail. Without a seconder, Council cannot debate, amend, or vote on the motion. The process stops there—no debate, no vote, no explanation.
Council members have every right to oppose a motion. They can oppose it—but avoiding debate altogether avoids explaining why.
If Council Disagrees, Say So
Municipal governance depends on visible decision-making.
Residents need to see not only what decisions Council makes, but how those decisions take shape. Disagreement is part of that process.
If a councillor opposes the Mayor’s motion, the expectation should be simple: second it, bring it forward, and vote against it.
Explain the reasoning. Put it on the record.
Silence does not build trust. It weakens it.
Why the Motion Matters Now
This motion arrives at a time when public trust is already strained.
Residents are not reacting to theory. They are responding to recent decisions, communication gaps, and unresolved concerns about how Council operates.
Economic conditions add another layer of uncertainty. Interest rates have shifted repeatedly in recent years, and long-term borrowing carries real risk.
Council is making decisions that will shape the City’s financial position for years.
Debt Decisions Carry Risk
Large capital projects often get framed as opportunities. They are also long-term obligations.
The Municipal Finance Authority structures borrowing over extended periods, often with rates locked in for a set term. That structure does not remove risk—it delays when that risk becomes visible.
Lending rate history shows fluctuation, not stability.
No evidence suggests rates will be lower when loans renew. They could be higher. They could remain elevated.
Taking on record levels of debt under those conditions is not neutral. It is a calculated risk.
That risk deserves more than a line item in a report—it deserves public scrutiny.
For reference, recent lending trends can be reviewed here: https://mfa.bc.ca/long-term-lending-rates
An Election Is Approaching
Municipal elections take place on October 17, 2026. That date matters.
Council members are making decisions that voters will evaluate within a defined timeframe. Their actions—and inactions—will not disappear into process.
Silence, in this context, sends a signal.
Residents should expect elected officials to engage openly, state their positions clearly, and stand behind those positions.
Advertisement
Support the Motion to Delay Projects
Residents who support the motion to delay projects need to say so.
Email City Council at citycouncil@kamloops.ca before the Regular Council Meeting at 1:30 pm on Tuesday, March 24, 2026.
State your support clearly. Ask that the motion be debated in the open. Ask where each councillor stands. Then follow up.
If no response arrives, send another email. If the response avoids the question, ask again.
Consistency matters more than volume.
Participation Does Not Guarantee Accountability
Municipal systems allow participation. They do not guarantee accountability.
Accountability requires visibility, explanation, and follow-through.
When a motion never reaches the floor, none of those conditions exist.
That is the issue in front of Council now.
Conclusion: Silence Is Also a Position
The motion to delay projects creates an opportunity for Council to address a decision already in the public domain.
Supporting the motion is one step. More importantly, Council must engage with it openly.
Councillors who oppose it should say so and vote accordingly. Councillors who support it should ensure it moves forward.
Avoiding the discussion is not a neutral act. Silence is a position—and the public is entitled to see it.
EMAIL TEMPLATE (FOR RESIDENTS)
Subject: Support for Mayor’s Motion to Delay Projects
Dear Mayor and Council,
I am writing to express my support for the Mayor’s motion to delay major capital projects currently before Council.
I believe this motion should be brought forward, seconded, and openly debated so that residents can understand where each member of Council stands.
If any member of Council does not support the motion, I expect that position—and the reasoning behind it—to be stated publicly.
Given the financial implications and current economic uncertainty, decisions of this scale should be handled transparently.
Please confirm:
- Whether you will support bringing this motion forward for debate
- Your position on the motion
- What timelines are expected for any follow-up actions
I would appreciate a response.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
I fully support the mayor’s motion to delay major capital projects. This motion should be brought forward in a speedy manner for open debate.
I support the mayors motion and as a tax paying member of Kamloops , second his motion.
I completely support the mayor… these major projects that the council has pushed are much much more than we can afford….
Red Bridge first and cancel arts centre and new complex until funding is found from somewhere other than tax payers who are living paycheck to paycheck with no healthcare and no living wage.
Please delay this waste of taxpayers money
What then are we to make of the Mayor opposing the motion at the March 24th, 2026 regular meeting that sought to move the April 21st meeting about the future of the Pathways Shelter on the North Shore to the KIA Lounge in order to have the space to hear from MORE of the public? The mayor is frequently pushing for more opportunities for the public to provide feedback on all matters but then turns around and aggressively opposes a motion to do just that. He went on to question why city staff assumed there would be greater public interest in the shelter issue than a normal council meeting. For him it was case closed. He cited the informal survey conducted by the NSBIA of what couldn’t have been much more than a couple dozen of their own members as all the input needed to make a decision on the future of the shelter. He cited the NSBIA’s predictable result of 86% opposition to Pathways – as if it should be self evident to everyone in the room, that there was no discussion needed – or at best – a short one. He asked council “isn’t that who we work for?” It didn’t seem to occur to the mayor that he doesn’t work for the NSBIA, nor are they the only stakeholders here. I’d love it if the mayor realized he worked for ALL CITIZENS, including the ones in the shelters, and the ones that operate the shelters. Why turn such a simple and routine motion before council into a 45 minute circus? Regarding the PAC and other Build Kamloops projects, those are topics that featured front and centre of the last election. Kicking their future over to a future council with the argument that it’s somehow undemocratic or not transparent after not just an AAP, but a court decision on a challenge to the AAP just sounds like sour grapes – and yet another instance of the anti-PAC crowd trying to kill it by other means. I definitely have my own concerns about the debt we are taking on with these projects, the taxation level we are currently at and will be at going forward, and the wider context of a struggling economy and a good chance of a global recession – but council is right – a pause will increase the price by millions and millions – and put these types of investments in jeopardy of never being built. I’d also like to remind the person that commented that the first priority should be the reconstruction of the Red Bridge, that the city has no jurisdiction over that. It was a provincially owned asset and we are at the mercy and timelines of the current NDP government regarding any reconstruction.
How can the city build a major project that was voted down get the go ahead. I thought we were a Democrat society . Who is pushing this threw.
People who work in government have to realize who they are working for .
It appears city management does what it wants. Not what the people want.
Do McBullies run City Hall?