This is a guest post by Troy Sebastian, special projects coordinator for Ktunaxa Nation Council.

Amid the succulent smells of turkey and spice this Thanksgiving weekend, another season draws near.

In every municipality in British Columbia, lawn signs are popping up like plywood pumpkin patches. Door knocking has begun in earnest and no baby is safe from obligatory photo ops. Hand shakes and promises — the currency of democracy — reign once more.

Every town in the province is gearing up for municipal elections a month from now, except for one — the Jumbo Glacier Mountain Resort Municipality.

The reason is simple: Jumbo is a town without residents.

Jumbo is heavy on bravado and weak on substance. The project is sold as a 6,000-bed resort at the foot of a receding glacier that promises year-round skiing. Yet it is relying on taxpayer dollars to keep afloat. What Jumbo does have is the limitless support of the province in every request imaginable.

[view:in_this_series=block_1]

During the past five years, the province has:

• Extended the Environmental Assessment Certificate (2009)
• Approved the project (2012)
• Amended the Local Government Act to allow the creation of Jumbo municipality (2012)
• Established Jumbo Glacier Resort Municipality with appointed mayor and council (2013)
• Provided $260,000 in funding. The municipality’s five-year financial plan relies solely on taxpayer dollars, asking for $1 million from the province through to 2018.  

Yet the province has very little to show for its support.

The developer is under significant pressure to demonstrate it has “substantially started” the project. Otherwise its Environmental Assessment Certificate will soon expire. That is why a bridge and a shack are quickly being thrown together in the Jumbo Valley.

Years of government time, money and effort in support of this project have resulted in a taxpayer-funded bridge to nowhere.

When it comes to Jumbo, the red flags are plentiful. For starters, the East Kootenay region is awash in ski resorts that are rarely at full capacity.

The closest municipality, the District of Invermere, has been officially opposed to the project for years.

At the recent Union of British Columbia Municipalities, Invermere Mayor Gerry Taft put forward a motion to oppose provincial funding for towns without residents. It was adopted unanimously.

The Ktunaxa Nation is opposed to the project as the ski resort would be located in a sacred area known as Qat’muk. Jumbo is also critical grizzly bear habitat. The NDP are opposed, as are the Greens. Heck, Hockey Hall of Famer Scott Niedermayer and Olympic Gold medalist Beckie Scott are opposed.  

Olympians, Indians and grizzly bears — oh my!

And yet, the never-ending saga of the Jumbo Glacier resort continues to push the boundaries of expectation, common sense and straight-forward believability.

The province has an opportunity to put this sad cliché where it belongs: in the dustbin of loony B.C. ideas with the likes of Fantasy Gardens, Fast Ferries and the myth of Cascadia.

Should Jumbo Glacier Resorts by found to be in violation of its obligation to substantially start its project by October 12, the province will finally be in line with realities that are impossible to ignore. No one wants it. It does not make sense. It is a costly mess.

However, should the province continue its support for Jumbo, it will embrace a level of absurdity usually reserved for governments of global ridicule. Often, democracies beset with allegations of corruption and graft are known as ‘banana republics.’ It is an unfortunate term that usually refers to countries in the developing world. Bananas do not grow in Jumbo.

The continuing saga of the Jumbo Glacier Resort symbolizes all that is wrong with British Columbia’s politics and economy. Where else but in Jumbo would we find a mayor without residents, a town without homes or a ski hill without investors? Welcome to the Jumbo Republic!

The only people who could truly give thanks for this debacle are the mayor and council of Jumbo who are not encumbered with the weight of democratic accountability. Nor are they required to express their gratitude for the largesse they enjoy at the expense of the citizens of British Columbia.

It is time for Premier Clark to stop the Jumbo Glacier Resort gravy train and bring accountability and sanity to the situation once and for all.

Keep Jumbo wild.

That is something we could all give thanks for.

Photo: Courtesy of Pat Morrow

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Amid controversy about Enbridge’s spending in Kitimat before a plebiscite on its Northern Gateway oil proposal, the B.C. government introduced legislation on Wednesday that, if passed, will tighten rules for campaign financing and advertising in local government elections and referendums — but the changes come four years late and don't go far enough, says a campaign finance expert.

The new Local Elections Campaign Financing Act and Local Elections Statutes Amendment Act will require third-party advertisers to register with Elections BC, identify donors of $50 and more and report expenditures for the first time. It will also require all election advertising to clearly name a sponsor and will ensure all campaign donations and expenses are published on the Elections BC website. It will also extend the terms of office for local elected officials from three years to four.

“This is the most significant update to B.C.’s local elections process in 20 years,” Coralee Oakes, the province’s community, sport and cultural development minister, said in a statement.

However, the legislation still won’t mandate spending limits for candidates and third parties — a recommendation made by a joint B.C.-Union of B.C. Municipalities local government elections task force in 2010. The government says expense limits will be broached in a second phase of legislation before the next local election in 2018.

The task force, which reviewed more than 10,000 submissions from groups and individuals, said in its report that the intent was for its recommendations to be put in place for the 2011 local elections.

"One task force, one white paper, four years of procrastination, and the elephant is still in the room,” said Dermod Travis of Integrity BC, a non-profit that advocates for electoral finance reform.

In a submission to the province on elections reform, Integrity BC stressed the importance of implementing spending limits sooner rather than later:

The opportunity to fix a broken system, to increase accessibility to public office and to strengthen local democracy should not be lost in this process, even if it is only for one more cycle of local elections. Without meaningful electoral finance reform that includes strict election spending and contribution limits, candidacy for local government will — by and large — remain the purview of the affluent and well-connected and the public's faith in local government will continue to diminish.

The task force had clearly called for expense limits to be implemented. Its report said:

The task force believes that expense limits could increase accessibility and fairness by levelling the playing field among candidates; encouraging candidate participation; and reducing the need for large contributions to fund expensive campaigns … applying limits to third parties is important to ensuring that third party advertising cannot be used to work around restrictions on campaign spending (and accordingly, transparency).

Expressing further concerns about the impact of third-party advertisers, the report said:

Third party advertisers can have a significant impact on democratic debate in a community, but the current rules do not provide sufficient clarity on obligations of third party advertisers.

More than 1,660 elected positions on more than 250 government bodies are filled through local elections in B.C. The next local elections will be held on Nov. 15, 2014.

In the 2011 election, the largest donation was $960,000 from Vancouver businessman Rob Macdonald to the NPA. In many other Canadian cities, donations of this size aren't allowed — in Montreal, the annual cap is $300, in Toronto it’s $2,500, in Winnipeg it’s $750 and in Calgary it’s $5,000.

According to a 2010 public opinion survey conducted by the Mustel Group and commissioned by then SFU professor Kennedy Stewart, 74.5 per cent of respondents felt there should be a limit on how much any one person can donate to a local election campaign and two-thirds supported a ban on corporate and union donations.

Even if the new legislation was in affect now, the Kitimat plebiscite as structured wouldn’t fall under the new rules (a plebiscite is non-binding) — but a vote on a local bylaw or a referendum on a regional district service would. As it stands, Enbridge won't have to disclose its expenditures, which are likely to exceed $20,000 — six times what the company would be allowed to spend during a provincial vote.

Campaign spending limits for candidates and political parties have been in place at the federal level since 1974 and at the provincial level since 1995 — but it looks as though B.C.’s local elections and referendums will roll on without them until at least 2018.

Photo by Pete via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.