Parks Canada casts shadow on Sunshine Village resort
Changes to lease agreement could mean reducing amount of ski, snowboard area
Every couple has quirky little traditions they share, and my husband and I are no exception. One includes the butchering of the Katrina & the Waves’ song Walking on Sunshine.
When we ski at Sunshine Village Resort in Banff National Park, I often start singing, “I’m skiing on Sunshine, (wow!)” over and over.
Before the first hour is up, I’ll hear poor Steve inadvertently humming the tune on the ski lift or whistling it as he speeds down the slopes — the song worm deeply embedded in his brain for the rest of the day.
And aren’t we lucky that as Calgarians, we live just a short drive away from skiing on Sunshine, which is an apt name since when it comes to ski hills it’s one of the sunniest places to be and ski.
It appears, however, that Parks Canada is casting a troubling shadow on that sparkling chunk of rocky mountains by simultaneously approving an increase in the number of people allowed to ski and snowboard there while “shrink-wrapping ” the amount of skiable land currently included in the resort’s lease agreement.
If that sounds like a contradiction to you, that’s because it is!
This is all part of the larger issue that is so disturbing for Canada. It’s almost impossible to get anything built in this country anymore. Public amenities and essential infrastructure are protested and scuttled at every turn.
Without getting too technical, the resort’s 42-year lease agreement
is coming up for renewal with Parks Canada soon and the two sides aren’t exactly seeing eyetoeye.
Currently, Sunshine’s lease footprint is about 918 hectares. Parks Canada’s plan includes taking back some of that land just because it doesn’t currently have any ski lifts on it, reducing the resort’s lease footprint to about 415 hectares. Not surprisingly, Sunshine’s majority shareholder and president, Ralph Scurfield, is alarmed by Parks Canada’s proposals. Who can blame him?
His family has invested many tens of millions of dollars into the resort that draws visitors from around the world and pumps millions into the local economy of Calgary, Banff and area.
“They want to basically shrinkwrap us, put us in a box and nail it down,” said Scurfield. Looking into the documents on this, it’s hard to fault Scurfield for this view.
To accommodate the Parks Canada draft, Sunshine would have little choice but to increase parking capacity by building a parking structure or a terrace along the north edge of the current parking lot.
Scurfield, however, would rather build a small-scale parkade and a new off-site lot to meet the resort’s parking needs, saying its option would have less impact on the environment than a 1,030-stall parking structure at a cost of $30 million.
Building such an unsightly cement structure that will only be used for about 60 days of the year would make Sunshine uneconomic and ruin the visitor experience, lending an air of concrete jungle to the wilderness ambience of a surface lot covered in snow pack.
In contrast, Sunshine wants to build a reasonably sized parkade
of 280 stalls, a new satellite parking lot on the access road of 750 stalls. That land is zoned as roadway setback, but is currently not part of the resort’s lease footprint.
“All other resorts were given land zoned as wilderness outside leaseholds for their projects,” said Scurfield.
Unlike a very small minority of Canadians who carry 30 kilogram packs on their back and venture off the beaten path in our national parks, most of the rest of us stick to, if not just pavement and ski hills, then certainly marked trails and paths.
Ski hills are one of the best, most exhilarating ways many of us experience nature and winter, and the more we experience Canada’s national parks, the more passionate we are about protecting them for future generations and wildlife.
According to Scurfield, more than eight out of 10 park visitors in the winter ski.
“Sunshine is enjoyed by more visitors each winter than any of the other three Canadian national park resorts, all of which negotiated their site guidelines
collaboratively with Parks Canada, rather than them being imposed by the minister of the environment,” he said.
There are also conflicting visions about a new ski lift to Goats Eye. Parks Canada’s proposal would see 6,000 trees chopped down and numerous towers built, while Sunshine’s plan would require just 200 trees to be cut down and just one tower.
Parks Canada’s acting superintendent of the Banff Field Unit, Sheila Luey, says most ski areas need some kind of lift redundancy, and you can’t just measure environmental impact by how many trees need to be cut down or how many towers are built. Hmmm?
That Parks Canada held its open house on this issue in Banff from 3 to 6 p.m. on a Tuesday (July 31) is also baffling. Nevertheless, Luey says most people prefer to weigh in online and she has received almost 2,000 submissions on the proposal.
Scurfield is urging all Canadians who love skiing on Sunshine to send their comments prior to the cut-off at midnight on
Sunday. Consider this awesome letter sent in by a family in the United Kingdom:
“We first skied at Sunshine in 1994 on our honeymoon, and have been back many times. It is a long way for us to travel from the U.K. but well worth the time. As a family, it is our favourite resort and it is where both of our daughters first learned to ski. We were there again this year,” said the writer.
Another writer said they just learned to ski two years ago, and prior to that, they rarely visited the national parks. Now they visit frequently and are healthier and better citizens as a result, valuing nature more than ever. So, come on, Albertans. Plant your own thought worms in the minds of the Parks Canada officials who will be determining the fate of Sunshine Village Resort, and insist that not only should the resort’s footprint not be shrunk almost in half, but it should be increased just a bit to help improve the visitor experience and make it possible for just a few more people to enjoy skiing on Sunshine.