People do not seem to understand how the EA process works. The process is one that is designed to come to a set of conditions under which the project can go ahead. No projects gets turned down, they simply are abandoned if the proponent feels the conditions required are too much. The EAO would have required all the interests of the people opposed to the project to be considered and reflected in the conditions for the project to go ahead. Obviously the conditions are ones the resort developer feels he can meet because he has not walked away from the process. The people in the EA office are non-partisan and take no direction from the political side of the fence on what the conditions are to be. If you meet any of the people of the EAO, you will understand that they are decent professionals and not linked to political decisionmaking.

The initial developers - those who come in, do the first parts of development and then sell their interest - don't have to worry about any long term implications including economic viability. That's why the concerns of those who are in recreational businesses in Invermere and are there over the long tern should have been given much more weight. As for the environmental concerns, the proponent's own report said mitigation of the impact of this resort would require steps like closing access to most drainages in the area. They included the Glacier Creek drainage, which is the access to popular hiking destinations like Monica Meadows. The proponent later said other steps could be taken, but this basic question, whether those of us who live here can have access and where (and how the limited staff left could ever moniter access) is unresolved. Another big question is how the provincial government goes about determining the value of Crown land use and how it will be determined what the proponents will pay - if this resort gets that far.

The EA process is set up in such a way that you can not give an order to do something if you are on the political side of the fence. The civil service professional and non-partisan. The cabinet and legislature set the laws, regulations and policy but do directly deal with day to day decision making. The EAO was set up by the NDP in the 1990s to avoid increased inference by the federal government in major projects. The act it is created under is the counter to the federal EA act. The federal government can enact their EA process on a project if they are unhappy with the process or do not trust the process. This is one reason the current government has not done away with the EA process. If anyone thinks that it operates differently, then you are sadly mistaken and do not understand how BC is governed or how civil servants work.

Bracket /B End-Bracket

(/B) I must strongly disagree with Bernard's comments about Jumbo. It is a highly political file and senior civil servants are very much attuned to political nuances. The whole EAO process is designed to have projects approved once they are in the EAO pipline, ie. any and all environmental consequences can be mitigated as noted by Tish above. And yes we have a wonderful civil service with smart people of itegrty who are working hard to provide expert advice to the political level. By oath, civil servants must support the policy and objectives of the government or leave the civil service for other employment

Bernard, every ministry in the provincial government has deputy ministers as well as other staff who are political appointees. There are hundreds in the premier's office alone. These people are not appointed to uphold the integrety of anything other than the minister or government that appointed them. These "civil servants" as you call them are integrated with the senior corp of bureaucrats in the specific ministries with the primary responsibility of ensuring political policy is followed in government decision-making. I agree with both you and Kim Anderson above that there are many great, dedicated and smart civil servants, but as he noted their hands are effectively tied unless there is a streak of independance in the individual that is backed up by enough financial independance to stand up to the appointees who are calling the shots on behalf of the politicans. Political theory is wonderful, unfortunately politics gets in the way of it. I'm still curious if there was any meaningful consultantions with First Nations on this project.

Allan, the voice of great, dedicated and skilled civil servants, who understood that there reason for being was that they could best protect the public trust, has lessened over the past years and replaced too much by skilled administrative types, who have been given the power to make decisions in areas where they have no expertise.

In one breath he says: "The process is one that is designed to come to a set of conditions under which the project can go ahead." Then in another he purports: "The people in the EA office are non-partisan and take no direction from the political side of the fence on what the conditions are to be." Well, gag me with an F'in spoon! Folks, inform yourselves! Educated your neighbour! But most of all, get your asses off the computer chair and out into the woods, if only for a day or two. Then send $20 to your local environmental mouthpiece and local opposition political party with instructions to combat the local MLA syncophants at home and in Victoria who continually are dreaming up new ways to destroy this precious place, one valley, one mountain, one river, and one species at a time. For chrissakes, isn't there enough damn ski hills already? Or, are we just going to recreate ourselves into extinction! For more informaton on those "non-partisan" folks in the BCEAO, read the BC Supreme Court decision on the Squamish First Nations challenge against, you got it, another ski resort. Check it out: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/Jdb-txt/SC/04/13/2004BCSC1320.pdf

ive been reading what i can about jumbo for a few months now and all of us should be alarmed at the virtual give away of this province for this kind of infastructure and yet.. surprise! another ski resort, if you ask the minster in charge you'll find it's not their responsibilty other than to rubber stamp and approve it. what ever opposition they might encounter will be someone elses problem in another dimishing aspect of our so called provincial watch dogs,just ask the minsister in charge of handing out permits for fish farms..he's afraid of stepping on toes with other ministers, despite the alrming facts on the sea lice problem and our threatened wild salmon stocks if you oppose this kind of developement you must be a leftie or a tree hugger , not so maybe im just concerned about what's left? for the province to move forward on this without even the most basic of information gathering from it's citizens is yet another appalling example of how this goverment shows it's contempt for the tax paying public in general

[media excerpt, re: Garbaldi at Squamish Resort, which was significantly set back by the Squamish First Nation's recent legal challenge; notice the contempt in the proponent's words; more than that, notice who he thinks determines the course of culture, i.e., our lives!] As for the snowmobilers who frequently ride on Brohm Ridge and expressed opposition to the resort proposal in 1998, (Wolfgang) Richter thinks it’s time for a change. “They’ve had a wonderful sandbox up there to play in,” he said. “If I were them I wouldn’t like me either. But it’s time to move on. I think we have to change the culture up there.” --- Then consider this tidbit of insight: "This is a very significant project for the province, hundreds of millions of dollars," - Charles Littledale, Land and Water B.C. Okay, got it, Wolfgang and Charles, thanks for the insight on what's really going on here. Me thinks this province should change its name from the Province of British Columbia to the Investment Corporation of British Columbia.

I think Bernard gave a very good picture of how government public consultation processes are supposed to work -- in theory. I'm sure there are thousands of dedicated and objective civil servants still out there, but anyone who's watched this government working from up close recently would be aware that those foolish enough to try doing their jobs objectively get pushed aside the moment their "objectivity" crosses paths with political imperatives. I've seen this in two provincial Ministries, and I've also seen how easily unfavourable public feedback can be spun to suit one's goals, as long as you put the right people in charge of writing the reports.

DS, yes that is the sad reality we are faced with today. We're down to discussing how government works "in theory". Your final comments about report writing "as long as you put the right people in charge of writing the reports", reminds me of the Gary Filman report on the wildfires of 2003. Here we have a former Manitoba premier freshly turfed from office over scandal and mismanagement going back years and, despite rolling in from a province where deep forested mountain valleys are as rare as mountain tops, Filman gets a pile of BC tax dollars to wax on at length about conditions a local high schooler could have probably added more depth to. I find it strange that B.C. media never got around to questioning that package of pork and apparently never talked to others in the forest industry and particularly the fire fighters who watched incredulously as our so-called experts and interfering politicians at various levels hampered with those who toiled to actually put out the fires. Filman got his pay and presumably invested it in Manitoba, meanwhile, people who lived and survived the fires are told to move, get a job, and quit complaining.

Here is another perfectly good reason why their should be a Green Party presence in the Victoria legislature. Not heard much out of the NDP over this one, of course since they don't want to upset any of the construction union friends. If the consultation process is used to further one side or the other it is no longer a consultation process, just an excercise in fulity. The issue of land claims in this province will raise its head again and again, every development should be working in consultation with the local native bands and I mean more than giving the a few million for a long house then telling them to butt out.

Just a few HTML tips so that the next time a bored little boy wants to implant tags in the comments, we can any of us solve the problem.

Perhaps the editors can add these somewhere so everyone gets to see them...?

If you want to make text bold, put this <b> before the text you want bolded. Stop the bolding by putting this </b> after the last word you want bolded.

Start paragraphs by putting this <p> before the first word of your paragraph.

End paragraphs by putting this </p> after the last word of your paragraph.

Using <p> and </p> will force a one-line break. If you do not want a break in your text, and you would rather that the following text start right below, use this combination of symbols <br>

Underlining for emphasis is not always recommended as the underlined text could be mistaken for a link, but I'm pretty sure on this site anyway, the links are orange and underlined text is black. Start the underlining with this <u> Stop it with this </u>

<Hope that helps>

Another way to make text bold is to use <strong> and </strong> the same way you would use the bold tags <b> and </b>

I'm doing a project in school on the topic of the Jumbo Glaicer Resort, I need good site that oppose it and their reasons if anyone can help me out or post some sites that they think would be useful that would be great. - thanks

Ashley, you might start at the Vallhalla Wilderness Society or the Jumbo Creek Conservation Society, both mentioned in the article, or just google Jumbo Creek and look for all the information this government and its oh-so independant review crew opted to ignore in their rush to meet the political objectives.

Re 'Green Party Presense' with their new look and leader and 'market solutions' the green party has become, at best, not a viable voice of opposition in this or any other issue.

Squamish Tree Hugger, your understanding of the Greens is bang on. They sing the songs of the left and then work to help their corporate heros run roughshod over workers. If you live in Surrey-Panaramma, please don't throw your vote away and vote for a Green as it will only help the Liberals in particular and the right wing (Greens included) in general.

Rockerbiff...son, the construction UNIONS will have very little to do with any of this multi zillion dollar quote investment endquote. It will be NONunion and RATunion workers, getting the absolute least amount the off-shore bosses can possibly get away with...you guys who are so obviously anti-union have really got to take a bit of time to do some research. I bet you enjoy your weekends, you unemployment benefits, your medical coverage, your statutory holidays, your annual leave, your accrued pension, your child tax credit, your Old Age and Canada Pension.... who do you think GOT those goodies for you? Neither the government nor the bosses ever jumped up and volunteered anything. All the things you enjoy come to you because of the hard work, dedicated and spilled blood of the women and men who looked past the end of their own noses, put selfish personal interest aside and committed years of their lives to making sure we had a social safety net. And in those places where unions were crushed, conditions have never been as good as they have been in places where the unions withstood the paid goons which moved against them. If the Greens really want to be anything other than an annoying joke they are going to have to get serious about finding out some basic facts. Slamming the unions isn't going to make you any friends and it sure as hell cost you MY vote! SOLIDARITY FOREVER. And God bless T.C. Douglas!!!!!!!!!!!

Rockerbiff...son, the construction UNIONS will have very little to do with any of this multi zillion dollar quote investment endquote. It will be NONunion and RATunion workers, getting the absolute least amount the off-shore bosses can possibly get away with...you guys who are so obviously anti-union have really got to take a bit of time to do some research. I bet you enjoy your weekends, you unemployment benefits, your medical coverage, your statutory holidays, your annual leave, your accrued pension, your child tax credit, your Old Age and Canada Pension.... who do you think GOT those goodies for you? Neither the government nor the bosses ever jumped up and volunteered anything. All the things you enjoy come to you because of the hard work, dedicated and spilled blood of the women and men who looked past the end of their own noses, put selfish personal interest aside and committed years of their lives to making sure we had a social safety net. And in those places where unions were crushed, conditions have never been as good as they have been in places where the unions withstood the paid goons which moved against them. If the Greens really want to be anything other than an annoying joke they are going to have to get serious about finding out some basic facts. Slamming the unions isn't going to make you any friends and it sure as hell cost you MY vote! SOLIDARITY FOREVER. And God bless T.C. Douglas!!!!!!!!!!!

Rockerbiff...son, the construction UNIONS will have very little to do with any of this multi zillion dollar quote investment endquote. It will be NONunion and RATunion workers, getting the absolute least amount the off-shore bosses can possibly get away with...you guys who are so obviously anti-union have really got to take a bit of time to do some research. I bet you enjoy your weekends, you unemployment benefits, your medical coverage, your statutory holidays, your annual leave, your accrued pension, your child tax credit, your Old Age and Canada Pension.... who do you think GOT those goodies for you? Neither the government nor the bosses ever jumped up and volunteered anything. All the things you enjoy come to you because of the hard work, dedicated and spilled blood of the women and men who looked past the end of their own noses, put selfish personal interest aside and committed years of their lives to making sure we had a social safety net. And in those places where unions were crushed, conditions have never been as good as they have been in places where the unions withstood the paid goons which moved against them. If the Greens really want to be anything other than an annoying joke they are going to have to get serious about finding out some basic facts. Slamming the unions isn't going to make you any friends and it sure as hell cost you MY vote! SOLIDARITY FOREVER. And God bless T.C. Douglas!!!!!!!!!!!

Nope, it won't be union labour building that resort, and it sure as hell won't be unionized labour running it. Oh glory. Just what the world needs. A few more 6-buck an hour McJobs to throw onto the community support services.

Anne, be gentle with these "young uns". Seems they have grown up under el gordo's reign, panicked and jumped into bed with the first political quack to waddle by and are not quite certain of what's up or what's not, but are convinced that green is something more than a colour choice. One thing is certain, however, and both you and The RealBMFC have expained it pretty clearly. The only time union workers might be brought into a project like that is when the contractor needs fully qualified, trades people. They will more or less be isolated and you can believe me, they will not be encouraged to try any organizing, at least on company time. More than likely, the jobs will go to Albertans who know the non-union wages in Alberta are even worse than here. I'd say the best chance of getting a job if you want to work there is to hitchhike a ride near the projects and hope someone is in need of a warm body who can swing a hammer or tote a two-by-four without smacking the foreman. Don't talk union, whatever you do, at least not until you get hired and are not on the job. The one bright sign on the horizon for union workers is that the demand for people with real qualifications as opposed to a pair of work boots, hardhat and willingness to work for less, will grow as we continue this mad rush to become the winter playground for the world's wealthy. Consumers, who hope to spend the rest of their lives basking in the fun at their own ski hill condo, home or whatever, should also have a few concerns about skills. If you find yourelf planning to build, ask your contractor to provide proof his trades people have BC trade qualifications. That $10-an-hour former hitchhiker, who is anxious to start pounding nails on your walls, may not appreciate the difference between a nail and a screw, but you will eventually if he opts for the wrong bag.

With the prospective arrival of so many ski resorts, not to mention the twenty-ten gig, it appears to me certain folks have opened their pockets to the governing elite in this province, and have designs on BC becoming a winter mecca on the scale of the Caribbean for the same jet-setting recreationalists. I don't remember this major land-use direction being debated on the pages of The Scum or The Provincial Inquirer, or anywhere else for that matter. It seems a person has to play connect-the-dots to get the big picture on land-use around here. Anyway, if BC wants to be a mecca for anything, it should be for low-impact recreation, ala back-country activities, and not for "fat-bastards" who want to "experience" nature from the comfort of their leather-skinned SUVs. But, oh dear, where would would the proletariat get jobs without deep-sixing the environment? The irony, of course, is that the enviro will be deep-sixing the proletariat soon enough... so then who's going to get it first? Man vs Nature - battle to the end times, on FOX TV near you.