Our incessant need for entertainment as a culture has hit the last frontier, National Parks. With the building of a new Glacier Skywalk on the Icefields parkway and many other proposed projects, including a 24 metre tall Mother Canada Statue proposed in Cape Breton Highlands National Park, has raised concern across the country. To quote the ex-park superintendent Kevin Van Tighem “it’s as though nature is no longer enough”. An article published by the Globe and Mail dives deeper into these issues, claiming that Canada is suffering from the Disneyfication of it’s National Parks.

Here is my dilemma, on one hand the Canada National Parks Act passed in 200o says these areas “shall be maintained and made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”, but on the other hand making the parks more accessible and attractive to the general public cannot be all bad. So where do we draw the line? At what point should the natural beauty of Canada stand alone?

Growing up just outside of Banff National Park, the very first in Canada, I have watched both sides of the struggle my whole life. Creating ski hills and various other man made attractions can help people enjoy the natural beauty of the area when they may not have otherwise. However, these attraction are definitely impairing the natural beauty of the area. So do we continue creating these attractions, growing the number of visitors to the parks and making it more accessible to all Canadians, or do we shut it down leaving a remote, pristine area that is available only to a dedicated minority.

I’m here to promote a middle ground on the basis of accessibility. If the attraction in consideration helps accessibility to the area without compromising the natural beauty it should be considered (not immediately agreed to, considered) this would allow for areas like the Lake Louise ski resort to continue operations, which would bring more people into contact with our beautiful backyard, and hopefully convince some of them to protect it! This plan would also allow for the maintenance and creation of trails, increasing access for those who want to explore in nature. Projects that are not increasing accessibility to our natural world should be largely ignored. These have no place in our parks. If there is a compelling argument for why the Mother Canada statue is increasing accessibility, not admissions, I will accept that it has just as much right to space in our parks as the trails we build to access them.

This does present the issue of keeping admissions up in a world of ever increasing competition for our time. Perhaps this is an opportunity for revamping the promotion strategy at Parks Canada instead of fabricating attractions, more on this to follow.