Tomorrow is Parks Canada’s deadline for public comments on the environmental assessment of the proposed Glacier Discovery Walk, not that it really matters to staunch opponents of the project. The fiercest critics of Brewster Travel Canada’s proposal complain that the system of public feedback is essentially rigged against them, and they have some reason to feel this way.

Parks Canada is primarily inviting comments on the specific environmental impacts of this project. Moreover, these comments are to be based on an assessment carried out by a consultant hired by Brewster, which concludes that the development will have minimal impact on the environment. So really, what is there to oppose?

Plenty, for Canadians who feel strongly that this project is wrong for a multitude of reasons that go far beyond its environmental impact. Local residents and people across the country who believe that large-scale, highly commercialized projects like this are inappropriate for Jasper – or any national park, for that matter – have been voicing their opposition for nearly a year now. A Dec. 16 deadline for comments on the environmental assessment means little to them, although many are dutifully submitting their opinions in writing to Supt. Greg Fenton, anyway.

The salient question is: How much will Fenton consider these points of view?

Parks Canada has made it clear from the get-go that the standardized public consultation process would focus on the environmental assessment of the project, not over-arching philosophies about the purpose of national parks or the extent of acceptable commercialization or the proper balance between development and conservation. Yet it is impossible to entirely abstract from these larger questions when dealing with the Glacier Discovery Walk, specifically.

That leaves the superintendent in a difficult position. On the one hand he, as a senior administrator, has a certain protocol to follow in making his decision. On the other hand, he is well aware that there is no “cookie-cutter formula” for a decision like this, and there are number of complex factors he must consider.

Fenton told the Fitzhugh that, whatever he decides, it will be mainly based on the “quantitative elements” contained within the environmental assessment of the project. But he also hedged a bit.

“Having said that,” he said, “we certainly need to take into 

account broader public sentiment.”

To us, this sounds like he is carving out some room for more subjective considerations such as those raised by many of the project’s opponents. The question, again, is how much weight he will give to such considerations.

If his decision is based 100-per-cent on the environmental assessment, the project will almost certainly be approved. The fact is, barring some major accident during construction, this development does not pose a major threat to animals, plants, air or water. Arguments against the Glacier Discovery Walk on environmental grounds are the weakest.

Much stronger are the arguments which contend the project is not the right fit for Jasper. There is certainly a reasonable case to be made that closing an existing viewpoint to public parking and erecting an enormous, steel structure on the side of a mountain for private profit is a departure from what many would consider to be the true mission of national parks.

There is, however, another reasonable case to be made that projects like the Glacier Discovery Walk have been part-and-parcel to Jasper since its inception. How are developments like Jasper Park Lodge, the Jasper Tramway or Marmot Basin really that different? While these amenities alter the natural environment, they also provide the opportunity for people to engage with it. Isn’t this what national parks are all about?

It would be easy for Fenton to steer clear of these messy, 

subjective questions and stick solely to the “quantitative elements” when making his decision. But we hope he will take “broader public sentiment” strongly into account as he deliberates over the coming weeks.