Is the news shocking? Not really.
Thousands of Canadians knew a skywalk wasn’t something that belonged in a national park. They even voiced those concerns to the powers that be—Supt. Greg Fenton received upwards of 2,000 pieces of public feedback.
But here we are today, with traffic stoppages on Highway 93, so Brewster Travel Canada can build the interpretive walkway that will see park visitors pay $24.95 to stand at what was formerly a free lookout.
How did we get here?
That’s easy, the federal government slashed its funding last year, leaving national parks to search for new ways to amp up their revenue stream. And what better way to make revenue than to construct a new attraction to bring people through the gates?
The attraction, although seemingly against everything Parks Canada stands for, is just what it needs to remedy its budget.
Sound like conflicting priorities? Yeah, the draft assessment for the IUCN thought so too.
“The multiple management objectives of ecosystem integrity, promotion of environmental stewardship and increased visitation create conflicting objectives in the national parks,” it states.
“Increasing emphasis on visitation in parks to generate interest in and funding for parks systems may conflict with conservation objectives of natural and cultural heritage.”
Section 8.2 of the Canada National Parks Act states: “Maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity, through the protection of natural resources and natural processes, shall be the first priority of the minister when considering all aspects of the management of parks.”
And yet here we are watching an interpretive walkway being constructed over mountain goat habitat.
It’s hard to blame Parks for our predicament. The agency is stuck in an uncomfortable position created by the federal government—a government that broke the parks act by forcing national parks into this position.
If Parks Canada was well funded, national parks wouldn’t be forced to look elsewhere for the funding they need to meet their mandate. If their mandate was a priority for the federal government, providing adequate funding to protect our parks wouldn’t be a question.
It seems until there’s a new government in place—one that values the protection of our national parks—these conflicting priorities will have to persist for Parks Canada.
Let’s just hope that one massive development is enough to line JNP’s pockets.
