Hot Springs and Hard Questions: Canada’s National Park Story
- Andreas Kondos Sheppard
- Mar 11
- 8 min read
The year is 1885. After years of scandal, hard labor, and on the brink of fiscal ruin, the Canadian Pacific Railway had finally breached the great rock wall of the continent: the Rocky Mountains. In specifics, the Canadian Rockies — those jagged peaks that rise from the Earth in the manner of a sawblade, frozen in time, slicing across the great plains (The Canadian Encyclopedia, n.d.-b). Ascending up the Bow Valley, railway crews, during breaks from the grueling manual labor of the job itself, took notice of the remarkable scenery around them. One of these crews took notice of rising smoke from the Earth: the steam of a geothermal spring (Luxton, 2008; The Canadian Encyclopedia, n.d.-a).
The discovery of these springs caused much stirring amongst the crews, soon spreading to their higher-ups. At this point in Canadian history, the great Western Frontier was ending. The seemingly endless expanse of Western North America had proven to indeed have an end, and the objective of the fledgling nation of Canada had switched from exploration to development. The lands of the West needed to be populated to prevent an upwelling of American settlement that, as it had proven before, often resulted in those lands becoming American territory. The question then became: what do we make of this site?
For the railway executives, a distinctive idea emerged, one that had been influenced by similar efforts of American conservationist thinkers like John Muir and his contemporaries. Protection. Perhaps protection is a stretch — this is not the same style of protection we associate modern Canadian parks with — but the underlying idea of ensuring the region’s inherent beauty remained unspoiled was there. And, in 1885, a 26 km2 reserve of land was established: the Banff Hot Springs Reserve (Luxton, 2008; The Canadian Encyclopedia, n.d.-a). Two years later, the park was extended to the surrounding mountains, becoming a considerable 674 km2 reserve, renamed Rocky Mountains Park (Luxton, 2008). Today, this park has become an astounding 6,641 km2 area of protected land — modern Banff National Park — Canada’s first, and North America’s third (The Canadian Encyclopedia, n.d.-a). Banff was the watershed of perhaps Canada’s greatest idea of environmental protection to date.
Make no mistake that this park was established first and foremost as a tourism venture — the CPR, now depleted in funds and desperate to begin turning a profit, offered hastily constructed resorts and spas in Banff, advertising the area as a stand of incredible mountain scenery with healing springs (Luxton, 2008; The Canadian Encyclopedia, n.d.-b). Moreover, additional parks were added along the line to highlight and offer distinctive mountain experiences — Mt. Stephen (today’s Yoho) was established around the CPR’s “Big Hill” (a region of exceptionally steep railway grading that proved problematic for engines), and Glacier was established at the height of Rogers Pass, providing easy access to alpine glaciers (Luxton, 2008; Parks Canada, n.d.-b). At the time, Glacier National Park was centred around the Great Glacier of the Selkirks, although the glacier has since receded to the extent that it is no longer easily accessible. Rogers Pass also proved to be a particularly problematic point for the railroad due to the incredible frequency and severity of avalanches (Parks Canada, n.d.-b). Together, this early string of reserves formed the “railway parks,” which were instituted as much as an attempt to protect the mountain scenery as they were a financial venture to help cover the exceptional cost of the railway itself (Luxton, 2008; The Canadian Encyclopedia, n.d.-b).
By 1911, this structure of land preserves established by the government had transitioned into a formal agency: the Dominion Parks Branch, the first national parks agency in the world and the predecessor to the modern-day Parks Canada service (Parks Canada, n.d.-a). The country appeared to be declaring that, in at least some sections of especially “pristine” and “untouched” wilderness — ignoring the Indigenous populations of these regions — they deserved to be protected from the developmental activities of modern civilization.
Of course, this approach came with some assumptions and consequences that proved harmful. To preserve the “untouched” wilderness, Indigenous communities were frequently relocated and prevented from hunting, harvesting, and even travelling through these parks, regardless of their own integration into the lands being protected (The Canadian Encyclopedia, n.d.-a). Seeing as these peoples were a part of the environment themselves, removal had unforeseen ecological impacts that are still being addressed today. Removal also introduced performative practices and demonstrations of Indigenous culture, most notably the infamous “Indian Days” festival of Banff (Luxton, 2008; The Canadian Encyclopedia, n.d.-a). The philosophy of protection these parks pioneered is not without controversy. By declaring some spaces as needing protection from civilization’s encroachment, a precedent is established where some spaces are “wild” and others are “civilized.” This dichotomous worldview can result in unprotected spaces being viewed as free for development, without taking into consideration sustainable usage and practices.
Nevertheless, the parks system, broadly speaking, was a popular and reputable success. Still, questions remained over the ability to use park spaces for development and economic purposes. Mining was still allowed in parks, economic exploitation still occurred — albeit on smaller scales — and it was unclear exactly how much power corporate entities had within the parks. This came to a head in the 1920s, as multiple hydroelectric developments within the Rocky Mountain Parks were proposed (Reichwein, 1995). The Alpine Club of Canada (ACC), which had previously been founded with the goal of encouraging mountain recreation, became increasingly involved as a pressure group against economic development in the parks. This was embodied by the coining of particularly pointed slogans — “Hands Off Our National Parks” is just one example (Reichwein, 1995). In 1923, the Canadian National Parks Association (CNPA) was established by W. J. S. (Shelby) Walker with the explicit goal of ensuring the preservation of Canadian parks against commercial interests for the good of the common people (Reichwein, 1995). The outspoken alpinist A. O. Wheeler, who held distinct sway in the ACC, worked closely with the CNPA. A heated debate was brewing, one that was especially motivated by the similar debates occurring in the United States over the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir; many, both politically and philosophically, saw this as the Canadian equivalent of that pivotal American conservation debate (Reichwein, 1995).
Ultimately, the dam proposals in Canada, after much debate and bureaucracy, would end in success for many of the projects. The Minnewanka and Spray Lakes Reservoirs are two examples of hydroelectric developments completed within parks (Reichwein, 1995). This debate, though, would have a much larger lasting impact on public perception of the role of national parks in Canada. Despite the success of the aforementioned projects, some proposals, like those for Waterton Lakes, would be defeated, largely due to American opposition (Reichwein, 1995). The impact of the then-recently constructed Hetch Hetchy reservoir, widely considered one of the greatest failures of the American park system, undoubtedly had an impact on this. Today, hydroelectric development in national parks in Canada, except on a minor scale, is generally considered unacceptable.
These efforts would show their true fruitfulness with the 1930 National Parks Act — perhaps the watershed moment in crystallizing the direction Canada’s parks were headed. This landmark act saw the explicit forbidding of industrial activities within parks, such as logging and mining, the formalization of park boundaries to a degree not previously seen, and the statement of the goals of education, enjoyment, and benefit for the common people (EBSCO Information Services, n.d.). It also marked the beginnings of a national park system that we still recognize, and enjoy, today. Though not perfect — some parks saw industrial operations extended well beyond this cutoff point, notably at Yoho, where the last mines closed in 1952 — the system was now well- defined, modern, and equipped with a cohesive moral framework for future operations (Burgess Shale Geoscience Foundation, n.d.). Perhaps most importantly, though, this act established the permanence of this policy. Before this point, parks were tentative and their longevity, while assumed, was not guaranteed. It was with the passing of this act that parks were officially made permanent, indisputably, to be forever protected (EBSCO Information Services, n.d.).
During this entire sequence of events, from the CPR’s westward expansion to the 1930 National Parks Act, additional parks had been added across Canada. The beauty of this sequence of relatively haphazard developments is that each park carries its own distinctive charm and story. Each park stood out to environmentalists, businesses, policymakers, and the common person for its own distinctive reasons that made it worth protecting. Some parks are reflective not just of natural beauty, but of the efforts of people to identify natural phenomena and see them protected for educational purposes. Consider Fundy National Park and its exceptional 9 metre tidal cycle. Some are amongst the largest preserves of land in the world and are dedicated to the maintenance of ecological systems deemed of special value, including species such as wood bison, as in Wood Buffalo National Park (Parks Canada, n.d.-c). And some are the product of community efforts to see a space special to the locality be protected — Mount Revelstoke National Park is the only park to have been developed based solely on a lone community’s urging (Parks Canada, n.d.-b).
National parks continued to be instituted and managed after the 1930 act, but there was still a glaring hole in the policy separating them from their modern existence — the hole of ecological protection. Up until this point, the policy discussed had been distinctively anthropocentric in flavour, favouring the activities, education, and enjoyment of humans over the intrinsic value these natural spaces have. This was finally remedied with the 1988 amendment to the act, which formally established ecological integrity as the primary goal of the parks, supplanting the formerly anthropocentric approach (Justice Laws Website, 2000/2001). Parks were now first and foremost for nature, putting human activities secondary to protecting the ecology itself. In some regard, this is still done for anthropocentric purposes — degradation of a park and despoilation of the space will naturally impact the benefit, enjoyment, and educational value of the parks — but this had never been formalized until then. Moreover, Parks Canada, as an official separate, stand-alone Government of Canada agency, was only established in 1998 (Parks Canada, n.d.-a). Perhaps as a final sweep in consolidating the changes made to the parks system throughout the twentieth century, in 2000/2001 Canada formally passed the Canada National Parks Act, which supplanted the previous 1930 act and formalized ecological integrity as the goal of parks (Justice Laws Website, 2000/2001). Parks had finally metamorphosed into a form that is distinctly modern and recognizable.
Our modern parks now cover approximately 343,456 km2 of land in Canada through 37 National Parks, 11 National Park Reserves, and 1 National Urban Park (Parks Canada, n.d.-a). Parks Canada intends to introduce 10 additional National Parks by 2030 to protect 30% of Canada’s lands by 2030 (Parks Canada, n.d.-a). Of course, the parks are subject to modern threats — climate change and its impacts, including wildfires, glacial recession, and drought — but objectively, the national parks system is considered Canada’s most successful means of environmental policy in the protection of lands. The future of our parks sits precariously between the coming impacts of climate change, balancing recreation and tourism with ecological preservation, and the pressures of surrounding industrial development. But to look into the future, we must investigate the past to gain context as to how the policy of “national parks” came to be. How remarkable it is that this all started from railway crews spotting smoke rising from the ground.
References
Burgess Shale Geoscience Foundation. (n.d.). A mine in Yoho National Park.
EBSCO Information Services. (n.d.). Canadian National Parks Act. EBSCO Research Starters. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/canadian-national-parks-act
Justice Laws Website. (2000/2001). Canada National Parks Act. Government of Canada. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/n-14.01/page-1.html
Luxton, E. G. (2008). Banff: Canada’s first national park: A history and a memory of Rocky
Mountain Park (2nd ed.). Summerthought Publishing.
Parks Canada. (n.d.-a). Canada’s national parks system. Government of Canada.
Parks Canada. (n.d.-b). Mount Revelstoke and Glacier history. Government of Canada.
Parks Canada. (n.d.-c). Wood Buffalo National Park. Government of Canada.
Reichwein, P. (1995). “Hands off our national parks”: The Alpine Club of Canada hydro-
development controversies in the Canadian Rockies, 1922–1930. Journal of the Canadian Historical Association, 6(1), 129–155. https://doi.org/10.7202/031091ar
The Canadian Encyclopedia. (n.d.-a). Banff National Park: Human history.
The Canadian Encyclopedia. (n.d.-b). Canadian Pacific Railway.
Comments