Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
Symbol of the Government of Canada

ARCHIVED - Parks Canada


Warning This page has been archived.

Archived Content

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats on the "Contact Us" page.

SECTION 2: ANALYSIS OF PROGRAM ACTIVITIES BY STRATEGIC OUTCOME

Parks Canada Agency’s strategic outcome for this reporting period is to:


Protect and present nationally significant examples of Canada’s natural and cultural heritage, and foster public understanding, appreciation and enjoyment in ways that ensure the ecological and commemorative integrity of these places for present and future generations.

An assessment of the progress the Agency made towards its strategic outcome and the performance status related to planned results/priorities was presented in Section 1. This section will focus on the performance status of program activities’ performance expectations.

There are two parts to this section. First, performance expectations and their status, including planned and actual expenditures, revenues and human resources (i.e., FTEs), are provided in Figure 1 by program activity, followed by detailed analysis of nine performance expectations.

Parks Canada’s performance has been assessed based on the following four ratings:

On Target means that the Agency has met the target levels and is usually applied in situations where the performance has been achieved within the reporting year;

Reasonable Progress means that progress (in areas over which the Agency has control or direct influence) toward a multi-year goal is reasonable, and if continued is likely to lead to achievement of the long-term target;

Caution means that either short-term goals are not being met, or that progress toward longer-term goals is below expectations; and

Insufficient Information means that there is not enough information to make a determination of progress.

PART I – PERFORMANCE STATUS BY PROGRAM ACTIVITY

Figure 1: Performance Status by Program Activity

Program Activity 1: Establish Heritage Places

Overall status
Lake Superior National Marine Conservation Area has been established. Since 2005, Tuktut Nogait National Park has been expanded. Forty-five (45) designations of places, persons and events have been approved. Twenty-six (26) buildings have been recommended for designation as federal heritage buildings. External factors out of the control of Parks Canada, the complex work environment, the desire to build long and lasting relationships with partners, stakeholders and other interested parties in the establishment and designation processes prevented Parks Canada from fully meeting its targets during this reporting period. Nonetheless, these establishments, expansions and designations ensure that significant examples of Canada’s natural and cultural heritage are preserved for present and future generations.


 3% of Total Expenditures
($ Thousands) 2007-2008 2006-2007
Planned Total
Authorities
Actual Actual
Expenditures 24,985 29,024 19,808 22,716
FTEs 115   116 129



Planned Results Create national parks and national marine conservation areas in unrepresented regions. Complete or expand some existing parks. Designate and commemorate places, persons and events of national historic significance. Designate other heritage places
Performance Expectations 1. Increase the number of represented terrestrial regions from 25 in March 2003 to 30 of 39 by March 2008, and increase the number of represented marine regions from two in March 2003 to four of 29 by March 2008. 2. Expand two national parks by March 2008, and increase the targeted land holdings in three unfinished national parks. 3. Designate, on average, 24 new places, persons and events per year.

4. On average, 30 commemorative plaques placed annually.
5. List 10,000 designated historic places on the Canadian Register of Historic Places by March 2009, and 17,500 by 2014.

6. Designate, in partnership with others, federal heritage buildings.
Peformance Status

1. Caution: National Parks
Parks Canada did not meet the target of 30 out of 39 regions represented by March 2008. No new park was established in this reporting period.

From March 2003 to March 2008, three terrestrial regions have been represented in the national parks system (Gulf Islands, Ukkusiksalik and Torngat Mountains) – making the goal 60% achieved (expectation was five by March 2008). There are currently 28 terrestrial regions represented by national parks.

Progress was made on several national park proposals including Mealy Mountains (NL), South Okanagan-Lower Similkameen (BC), Bathurst Island (NU), and East Arm of Great Slave Lake (NWT). For further information, please consult Part II of this section.

The need to build relationships and collaborate with Aboriginal groups, communities and other governments, in a complex external environment over which Parks Canada lacks control, makes it difficult to accurately predict future outcomes and timelines. For this reason, the target to increase the number of represented terrestrial regions is being extended to 2010 in the 2008-2009 Corporate Plan.

Caution: National Marine Conservation Areas
Parks Canada did not meet the target of four out of 29 marine regions represented by March 2008. Currently, there are three marine regions represented.

From March 2003 to March 2008, one agreement for a national marine conservation area in Lake Superior was signed in October 2007, making the goal of representing two additional marine regions 50% achieved.

Progress was made on national marine conservation area proposals for Gwaii Haanas (to represent two regions), Southern Strait of Georgia, Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine, and funding was announced to initiate Lancaster Sound studies. For the same reason as above, the target to increase the number of represented marine regions is also being extended to 2010 in the 2008-2009 Corporate Plan.

2. Caution: Expansion
Partial expansion of Tuktut Nogait was achieved making the goal 50% completed. Since 2005, 189,100 hectares were added to this park (representing 12% of the total park area). An interim land withdrawal for the purpose of expanding Nahanni (about six times the size of the current national park reserve) was completed during this reporting period. Nahanni expansion is well underway and expanded park boundaries are under final discussion. Challenges, similar to those described for the establishment process (see Performance Expectation #1), were encountered, preventing Parks Canada from meeting the March 2008 target. In order to complete final steps, this target is being extended to 2010.

2. Reasonable Progress: Completion
Land acquisitions occur on a willing-seller willing-buyer basis. Land was added to the Bruce Peninsula (71 hectares) and Grassland National Park (1,802 hectares). No opportunities to acquire land for Gulf Islands National Park occurred during this reporting period.

Current level of completion of Bruce Peninsula is 80%, Grasslands is 50%. For Gulf Islands, the goal is not to acquire all the lands within the boundary. As a result, it is not possible to provide a level of completion.

 

3. On Target: 45 new designations were made during the 2007-2008 reporting period, moving the average over three years to 28. The number of designations is attributed in large measure to the approval of outstanding recommendations of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada arising from its meetings in December 2005 and June 2006. For further information, please consult Part II of this section.

4. Insufficient Information: During the 2007-2008 reporting period, 22 plaques were unveiled at public ceremonies. Parks Canada had previously assumed that the number of unveiling ceremonies was directly correlated to the number of plaques installed (or placed). However, through work completed on the plaque backlog project, it has become apparent that, due to operational constraints, a significant lapse of time may occur before installation and Parks Canada currently has insufficient information regarding the number of plaques installed during the reporting period.

To address this situation, Parks Canada is implementing a multi-year plan to collect relevant data and to reconfigure databases to ensure a verifiable correlation between number of designations, plaques unveiled and plaques installed in a given reporting period.
5. Reasonable Progress: As of March 31, 2008, an additional 2,065 officially recognized historic places were listed on the Canadian Register of Historic Places for a total of 7,311 (73% of the 2009 target and 41% of the 2014 target). This is consistent with the approximate 11% growth rate of recent years.

Parks Canada partners with the 13 provinces and territories to put listings on the register. Parks Canada is responsible for listing historic places designated by the federal government, while the provinces and territories are responsible for listing historic places designated at the provincial/territorial and municipal levels.

In 2008-2009, Parks Canada will invest resources to increase the rate of listing of federally designated historic places on the register. Based on this, and on the numbers of listings the provinces and territories are projecting to add in 2008-2009, it is anticipated that the March 2009 target of 10,000 listings will be met.

6. Reasonable Progress:
During 2007-2008, 993 federal buildings were evaluated of which a total of 26 were recommended for designation as federal heritage buildings (one Classified – Maison Scott-Wright, 25 Recognized). These buildings include lighthouses, Government of Canada office buildings, training academies and research facilities.


 

Program Activity 2: Conserve Heritage Resources

Overall status
Thirty-two (32) national parks meet initial conditions for a functioning ecological monitoring system. Parks Canada developed and is implementing the new Principles and Guidelines for Ecological Restoration in Canada’s Protected Natural Areas, the first-ever Canada-wide guidance for ecological restoration practices. Most of the targets with regard to managing environmental impacts of Parks Canada’s operations were met. National park locations and size, complexity of the various operating environments and influence of external factors prevented Parks Canada from meeting all of its targets during this reporting period. Poor ratings have been improved to good at four national historic sites. Advice, recommendations and certifications were provided consistent with the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. A survey showed that national historic sites not administered by Parks Canada have an excellent awareness of the importance of preserving the historic condition. Overall, achievement during this reporting period contributed to maintaining and improving nationally significant examples of natural and cultural heritage administered and not administered by Parks Canada.


32% of Total Expenditures
($ Thousands) 2007-2008 2006-2007
Planned Total
Authorities
Actual Actual
Expenditures 206,895  219,253  201,388 207,772
FTEs 1,455   1,481 1,520



Planned Results Maintain or improve the ecological integrity of national parks, and the sustainability of national marine conservation areas. Maintain or improve the commemorative integrity of national historic sites, and the state of other cultural resources administered by Parks Canada. Support maintaining and improving the commemorative integrity of national historic sites, and the state of heritage resources not administered by Parks Canada.
Performance Expectations 7. National park and national marine conservation area management plans will be on schedule and consistent with management plan guidelines by March 2010.

8. Develop fully functioning ecological integrity monitoring and reporting systems for all national parks by March 2008.

9. Develop selected indicators and protocols for measuring national marine conservation area ecological sustainability by March 2009.

10. Improve aspects of the state of ecological integrity in each of Canada’s 42 national parks by March 2014.

11. Meet targets for five measures of environmental impacts of Parks Canada’s operations: greenhouse gas emissions, petroleum storage tanks, contaminated sites, halocarbons and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
12. Complete national historic sites management plans, consistent with management plan guidelines by March 2008.

13. Improve 75% of the elements of commemorative integrity rated as poor to at least fair condition, within five years of the original assessment.

14. Improve the state of other cultural resources managed by Parks Canada by March 2014.
15. Other owners of national historic sites are aware of commemorative integrity and have access to information on best practices in maintaining it.

16. Provide advice, recommendations or certification of interventions to built cultural heritage consistent with The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada as opportunity permits.
Performance Status 7. Reasonable Progress: As of March 31 2008, 35 of 42 (83%) national parks had approved management plans (an increase of two from last year). For the remaining seven national parks, four operate under interim management guidelines (Auyuittuq, Gulf Islands National Park Reserve, Pacific Rim National Park Reserve and Quttinirpaaq) and three (Sirmilik, Torngat Mountains and Ukkusiksalik) are engaged in the planning process. A new guide to management planning was adopted in January 2008.

There are three national marine conservation areas in place.  The production of a management plan for Lake Superior National Marine Conservation Area is on schedule.  With regard to Fathom Five Marine Park and Saguenay St. Lawrence Marine Park, management plan reviews were not completed within 5 years as required by legislation. The management plan for Fathom Five Marine Park was approved in 1998. Due to a longer process of establishing a formal agreement with local First Nations, the plan review has been rescheduled for 2010. The management plan for Saguenay St. Lawrence Marine Park was tabled in Parliament in 2000. The review is scheduled for the fiscal year 2008-2009.

The management planning process for parks and national marine conservation areas is complex and time consuming. Extensive consultation with local communities, stakeholders and Aboriginal peoples is required.

8. Caution: As of March 31, 2008, 32 out of 42 (76%) national parks have met initial conditions for a functioning ecological integrity monitoring and reporting system. This represents a significant improvement over the last five years and specifically a 71% improvement in this reporting period. The parks in the far North continue to be the least advanced due to access costs and continuous staff turnover. For further information, please consult Part II of this section.

9. Caution
: Within an international context (North American Marine Protected Heritage Areas Network) and the Federal Marine Protected Areas network, some progress was made in developing indicators and protocols for measuring ecological sustainable use. As a result, this target is being extended from March 2009 to March 2013 and will broaden its scope to include the development of a national monitoring program.

10. Reasonable Progress: The Agency continues to make progress as a result of the development of Canada-wide tools to guide active management and restoration and through the implementation of over 70 projects with specific measures for improving aspects of the state of ecological integrity in national parks. For further information, please consult Part II of this section.

11. Reasonable Progress: Contaminated Sites The Parks Canada Agency has made reasonable progress in the initial and detailed assessment of contaminated sites through funding received under the Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan. As in the previous year, some suspected contaminated sites were added to the Parks Canada list of contaminated sites; accordingly, the total number of confirmed or suspected contaminated sites rose from 388 to 394, an increase of 1.5%. In 2007–2008, 47 sites were assessed, five of which were new sites identified during the course of the reporting year. The percentage of sites pending assessment to date is 4.8% (19 of 394 sites awaiting assessment). Overall, the number of new suspected contaminated sites added to the Parks Canada database has dropped sharply, and the number of sites that have yet to be assessed has decreased markedly.

On Target: Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction The Agency had set a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from its own operations by 5.2% (2.9 kilotonnes), from the 1998 baseline level of 56.3 kilotonnes by 2011. The Agency has met the reduction target for the third year in a row. The level of greenhouse gas emissions from its own operations was 50.9 kilotonnes in 2007-2008.

On Target: Petroleum Storage Tanks As per the federal regulations on storage tanks, all known tanks subject to the regulations are registered in the Parks Canada database and all upgrades, removals and new installations were recorded.

Reasonable Progress: PCBs and Halocarbons The Agency produced and distributed the Halocarbon Handbook as well as the PCB Handbook, which provide the tools needed to manage halocarbon and PCB-containing equipment. Seventy-five per cent (75%) of management units have identified a responsible individual as well as confirmation that measures are in place to ensure compliance with the federal halocarbon and PCB regulations.
12. Caution: Parks Canada administers 158 national historic sites of which 151 require a management plan to be in place by the end of the reporting period. As of March 31, 2008, the Agency had completed management plans for 130 (86%) of the 151. All of these management plans were consistent with guidelines. There were no new management plans completed during this reporting period, although plans covering 17 outstanding national historic sites are nearing completion of their First Nation consultation processes. Parks Canada does not have full control over the timing and duration of these processes. The remaining four national historic sites have encountered challenges that prevent preparation of their plan within the expected timeframes. It is expected that most of the 21 outstanding sites will see their plans provided to the Minister throughout the next fiscal year.

13. Caution: Only 57% of the elements of commemorative integrity rated as poor were improved to at least fair condition within six years of the original assessment. In order to have the same basis of comparison, Parks Canada adopted, during this reporting period, the same methodology of initial assessment and went back six years to reassess improvement to elements since the beginning of this program. The Agency will move to a five-year cycle in conducting these assessments for the next reporting period. For further information, please consult Part II of this section.

14. Insufficient Information: Parks Canada lacks formal inventories and condition ratings for several classes of cultural resources, including archaeological sites, archaeological objects and built heritage outside of national historic sites. For historic objects, while a national inventory exists, it is incomplete and condition ratings need to be updated.  The percentage of objects rated as being in good condition remains at 76%, the same percentage as was reported in 2006-2007.

To address this situation, the Agency is examining options to develop a cultural resource information system that will enable it to report on its holdings of cultural resources and their condition in a standardized fashion. Cultural Resource Values Statements are also being developed to evaluate the condition of cultural resources in national parks. This will provide a baseline for future reporting on the condition of these resources.
15. On Target: In 2007-2008, Parks Canada administered a survey of other owners (not-for-profit organisations, other levels of governments and Aboriginal groups) of national historic sites. The survey, which received responses from 250 of the 605 sites, provided relevant information to allow Parks Canada to assess its progress as being on target for this performance expectation. The survey revealed that 99.5% felt that it was important to preserve the historic condition of their site and that 99% felt that it was important to communicate the historic values of the site. The survey also found that 88% of sites had access to some source of professional and technical support in terms of conservation and presentation of their site and that 77% of owners use the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada at least occasionally in managing their site.

16. On Target: Advice and recommendations were provided on 31 of the 35 active pre-certified Commercial Heritage Properties Incentive Funds (CHPIF) projects. Final certification reports, allowing the release of CHPIF funds, were produced for six of the 35 projects. Reports detailing various stages in the certification process were produced for 17 other projects. All advice, recommendations and certifications provided were consistent with the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada.


 

Program Activity 3: Promote Public Appreciation and Understanding

Overall status
Indicators and performance expectations for measuring public appreciation and understanding were developed through the review of the Agency’s strategic outcome and program activity architecture This exercise allowed Parks Canada to analyse and understand in more depth the concepts of awareness, appreciation, understanding and engagement of Canadians. Changing demographics, requirements for new methods of communication and the fact that the revision to the program activity architecture took longer than expected prevented the Agency from fully meeting its expectations. Despite this, Parks Canada is making good progress in meeting the expectations, and fostering public appreciation and understanding to help Canadians connect with their heritage places.


5% of Total Expenditures
($ Thousands) 2007-2008 2006-2007
Planned Total
Authorities
Actual Actual
Expenditures 34,230 36,299 33,287* 78,120*
Revenue 0   0* 785*
FTEs 264   268 764
* For an explanation of the variance between 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 actual expenditures and revenues, see Table 1 and Sources of Respendable Revenue in Section 3.



Planned Results Encourage the support and involvement of Canadians and stakeholders and their knowledge and appreciation of Canada’s heritage places.
Performance Expectations 17. Develop indicators, expectations and protocols for measuring public appreciation and understanding of Canadians and stakeholders by May 2007.
Performance Status 17. On Target: Indicators and Expectations Parks Canada established expected results and developed indicators and performance expectations for measuring public appreciation and understanding, all of which were provided to Treasury Board and are published in the 2008-2009 Corporate Plan.

Caution: Protocols No tools or procedures for measurement and analysis were undertaken during the reporting period as the process of establishing expected results, indicators and performance expectations took longer than expected. For further information, please consult Part II of this section.


 

Program Activity 4: Enhance Visitor Experience

Overall status
Results have exceeded expectations relative to participation in learning experiences and visitor satisfaction at 19 surveyed places. Three out of four targeted national historic sites have increased their number of visits. The exercise of defining the concept of personal connection through the Agency’s strategic outcome and program activity architecture review process took longer than expected, and external factors beyond Parks Canada’s control influencing the decrease of visitation at the Fortress of Louisbourg National Historic Site prevented the Agency from fully meeting its expectations for 2007-2008. Nonetheless, lessons learned from pilot projects, knowledge and understanding of the changing demographics in addition to consistent achievement of the expectations for satisfaction and participation in learning activities at surveyed sites over the last five years have contributed to ensuring that Parks Canada can continue to present nationally significant examples of Canada’s natural and cultural heritage, and foster public enjoyment of these places for present and future generations.


45% of Total Expenditures and 72% of Total Revenues
($ Thousands) 2007-2008 2006-2007
Planned Total
Authorities
Actual Actual
Expenditures 267,327 304,232 286,621* 189,598*
Revenue 74,358   77,457 73,161
FTEs 1,986   2,119 1,453
* For an explanation of the variance between 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 actual expenditures, see Table 1 in Section 3.



Planned Results Facilitate experiences that provide learning opportunities, visitor satisfaction and personal connections.
Performance Expectations 18. 10% increase in the number of visits to targeted national historic sites by March 2008.

19. 50% of visitors to national parks and national marine conservation areas, and 80% of visitors to national historic sites will participate in learning experiences at all surveyed sites.

20. 85% of visitors are satisfied, and 50% are very satisfied, with their experience at all surveyed sites.

21. Optimize the number of visitors who report a personal connection to the park or site visited (target to be established by October 2007).
Performance Status 18. On Target: Three of the four national historic sites that participated in the pilot project exceeded the 10% increase in person visits over the five-year period of the initiative. Fort Lennox, with a total in person visit of 47,530 had a 23% increase, Fort George with a total in person visits of 64,976 had a 23% increase while Fort Langley with a total in person visits of 67,836 had a 12% increase.

Caution: Despite investments in new initiatives to attract visitors, Fortress of Louisbourg, with a total in person visits of 97,371 experienced a 15% decline between 2003-2004 and 2007-2008. A contributing factor to the decline in attendance at the Fortress of Louisbourg is the decline in US travellers to Canada, particularly to Atlantic Canada.

Throughout this pilot project Parks Canada has learned some valuable lessons that will be built upon to address declining attendance system-wide. Parks Canada will focus on building internal capacity with the goal of developing a more sustainable approach to generating interest and increasing visitation to national historic sites, and working cooperatively on market development and a service offer that meets the needs, interests and expectations of current and potential visitors. In 2008-2009, this project will be expanded to include the following ten additional national historic sites: L’Anse aux Meadows, Signal Hill, Halifax Citadel, Grand Pré, Carleton Martello Tower, Sir George-Étienne Cartier, Fort Lennox, Laurier House, Lower Fort Garry and Fort Battleford.

19. On Target at surveyed locations: On average, 72% of the visitors who responded to the survey at the three participating national parks and 91% of visitors who responded to the survey at one of the 16 surveyed historic sites had used at least one heritage presentation product or service. No national marine conservation areas were surveyed in 2007-2008. For further information, please consult Part II of this section.

20. On Target at surveyed locations: The three national parks surveyed, with 93% to 95% visitors satisfied and 56% to 67% visitors very satisfied, and the 16 national historic sites surveyed in 2007-2008, with results ranging from 93% to 99% of visitors satisfied and results ranging from 59% to 91% of visitors very satisfied, met the expectation. No national marine conservation areas were surveyed in 2007-2008. For further information, please consult Part II of this section.

21. Caution: As stated in Section 1, Parks Canada is implementing, through its 2008-2009 Corporate Plan, a revised strategic outcome and program activity architecture. Through that exercise, the concept of personal connection has been defined and identified to be both an expected result of Parks Canada’s overall strategic outcome and of this program activity. At strategic outcome level: % of Canadians that report a personal connection to Parks Canada administered places will measure the concept, and, at program activity level, personal connection will be a composite of the following two performance expectations: % of visitors at surveyed locations that consider the place is meaningful for them and 85% of visitors at surveyed locations are satisfied, and 50% are very satisfied with their visit.


 

Program Activity 5: Townsite Management

Overall status
Commercial growth in communities is within legislated limits. Eighty-six percent (86%) of communities met the Federal Wastewater Guidelines while 75% of mountain parks met the more rigorous Parks Canada Leadership targets. An increase of 4.2% in the risk management or remediation of contaminated sites was observed. Seventy-one percent (71%) of communities have set targets for solid waste diversion and water conservation. Four out of six communities have completed actions plans and undertaken renovations for the protection of Parks Canada priority heritage assets. The need for infrastructure upgrades in Waterton and Wasagaming townsites as well as the unforeseen mechanical issues at the plant in Jasper prevented Parks Canada from fully meeting its expectations during this reporting period. The planned results for townsite management contribute to the achievement of Parks Canada’s mandate and are consistent with Parks Canada sustainable development strategy by supporting the effort towards the ecological integrity and the conservation of heritage assets for present and future generations.


3% of Total Expenditures and 3% of Total Revenues
($ Thousands) 2007-2008 2006-2007
Planned Total
Authorities
Actual Actual
Expenditures 12,664 19,337 16,363 13,503
Revenues 2,676   2,890 2,716
FTEs 100   92 88



Planned Results

Provide responsible environmental stewardship and heritage conservation.

Performance Expectations 22. Meet targets for legislated limits to growth, sewage effluent quality and management of contaminated sites and set targets for solid waste diversion and water conservation by March 31, 2008.

23. Townsites meet their targets for the protection of priority heritage assets owned by Parks Canada.
Performance Status 22. On Target: Legislated limits to growth Overall growth in townsites is within legislated limits and the amounts set out in approved community plans. During 2007-2008, Banff saw a decrease in its commercial floor area, reducing the percentage of the total limit allocated from 100% to 91%, due to the return of previously allocated but undeveloped space.  For the remaining six townsites, the percentage of the total limit allocated ranges from 5% to 33%.

Reasonable Progress: Sewage effluent quality and Management of Contaminated Sites Six out of seven communities met the Federal Wastewater Guidelines for sewage effluent quality while three out of four communities expected to meet Parks Canada more stringent Leadership targets met them. With regard to contaminated sites, Parks Canada seeks to increase the number of sites that are risk managed or remediated. As of March 31, 2008, 31 of 46 contaminated sites located within townsites were remediated or risk-managed.  Two sites were removed from the inventory due to reporting errors while one site was newly identified as requiring action. The percentage of remediated or risk-managed sites has increased from 63.8% (2006-2007) to 67.3% (2007-2008); an increase of 3.5% compared to last year.

Caution: Solid Waste Diversion and Water Conservation As of March 31, 2008, only five out of seven communities had set targets for solid waste diversion and water conservation making the performance expectation 71% achieved. Targets will be set for Wasagaming and Jasper for solid waste diversion, and for Wasagaming and Waterton for water conservation.

23. Insufficient Information: Parks Canada has priority heritage assets in six out of seven communities.  Of these six communities, five have completed an inventory of their heritage assets, five understand the condition of their priority heritage assets and four have completed action plans. Major renovations on priority heritage structures owned by Parks Canada were completed in four out of six communities; however, clear targets have not been identified by all communities against which their performance can be assessed.


 

Program Activity 6: Throughway Management

Overall status
One hundred percent (100%) of the 1,025 kilometres of through highways were open to traffic. Sixty-five percent (65%) of the Trans Canada Highway Twinning project is completed. An interim bridges and dams inspection directive was developed to address high-risk areas. Dams were inventoried. Water control obligations were inventoried and targets for compliance have been set. Water level measurement protocols are in place. Lack of a formal national asset condition inventory for both through highways and through waterways, decentralized operations and limited capacity associated with managing a large and complex asset base represented challenges for the organisation in meeting its expectations for throughway management. In addition to providing access to heritage places, throughways strongly contribute to the economic growth of communities outside the boundaries of Parks Canada heritage places.


12% of Total Expenditures
($ Thousands) 2007-2008 2006-2007
Planned Total
Authorities
Actual Actual
Expenditures 61,535 81,036 76,576 92,906
FTEs 241   239 250



Planned Results Provide safe highways, open to through traffic, and minimize their environmental impacts. Maintain condition of waterways, carry out water control functions and meet water level obligations.
Performance Expectations 24. Highways are open to through traffic.

25. Maintain highways in a condition that minimizes risk to users.

26. Minimize environmental impacts of highways.
27. 75% of waterway assets are maintained in at least fair condition.

28. Develop inventory of water control obligations, targets and protocols for measuring compliance by March 2008.
Performance Status 24. On Target: Parks Canada manages more than 1,025 kilometres through 16 national parks and one national historic site.  In 2007-2008, no through highway was closed due to asset condition.

25. Insufficient Information: Parks Canada lacks a formal national inventory and up-to-date condition ratings for through highways. Despite this, the Agency continues to invest in through highway recapitalization and maintenance.

As of March 31, 2008, six of the nine kilometres of the Trans Canada Highway Twinning project were completed including three bridges and three underpass structures for wildlife. The project is 65% completed with the full nine kilometres scheduled to be in service by late fall 2008.

Progress has also been made during this reporting period in developing a bridge inspection directive that will allow Parks Canada to implement a consistent methodology for completing inspections and condition ratings as well as better address high-risk areas.

26. Reasonable Progress: The strategy for ecological reporting on through highways is being implemented as part of the ecological integrity monitoring and reporting system for individual parks that have through highways; specific measures have been identified (e.g., roadside salt concentration and wildlife mortality) and progress will be reported on a five year basis for each park.
27. Insufficient Information: Parks Canada lacks a formal national inventory and condition ratings for through waterways but progress has been made on inventories of dams. There are 357 dams of which 84.6% have a condition rating done over the last 10 years.

Dams represent high-risk assets and present a significant challenge to the Agency because of their complexity and high maintenance and recapitalization costs. In this reporting period, Parks Canada developed an interim directive for dam inspection and will be developing a dam safety program next fiscal year. Funding has been allocated to the most urgent health and safety projects.

28. On Target:
Parks Canada has water control obligations on three waterways: Rideau Canal, Trent-Severn and Lachine Canal. Totaling 592.5 kilometres, Parks Canada has water control obligations set out in 53 agreements with industries, commercial and recreational businesses for which targets to meet these obligations have been established. Protocols to measure the compliance of water levels are in place at each of these canals.


PART II – DETAILED ANALYSIS OF NINE PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS

Performance expectations reported in Part II were selected amongst all performance expectations shown in Figure 1 because:

  • They relate most directly and significantly to the key elements of the Agency mandate and will be key in the new program activity architecture;
  • Together, they account for most of the Agency program spending and the lion’s share of revenue it generates (Agency spending in these core program activities has a direct and significant impact on local and regional economies; the Agency affects 469 communities and contributes an estimated $1.3 billion to the gross domestic product);
  • They support government commitments (e.g., Government Plan to Establish New Parks) and contribute to the attainment of most of the Government of Canada sustainable development goals; and
  • They include government performance expectations that are horizontal in nature such as the Species at Risk initiative (Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Parks Canada Agency). 

PROGRAM ACTIVITY 1: ESTABLISH HERITAGE PLACES

Planned Result

Create National Parks and National Marine Conservation Areas in Unrepresented Regions.

National Parks

The National Parks System Plan (1997) (www.pc.gc.ca) divides Canada into 39 distinct natural terrestrial regions, with the goal of representing each of these regions with at least one national park. Park establishment begins with the identification of areas representative of a natural region followed by the selection of a potential park proposal; conducting a feasibility study, including consultations, on the park proposal; negotiating park agreements; and formally protecting a park under the Canada National Parks Act.


Performance Expectation

Increase the number of represented terrestrial regions from 25 in March 2003 to 30 of 39 by March 2008.

Performance Status

As of March 31, 2008, 28 out of 39 terrestrial regions were represented. No new parks have been established in the period covered by this report.

From March 2003 to March 2008, three unrepresented natural terrestrial regions have been represented in the national parks system – making the goal 60% achieved (three out of five regions represented). A Canada-British Columbia agreement was signed for Gulf Islands National Park Reserve in 2003, an Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement for Ukkusiksalik National Park in 2003, and an agreement and formal establishment under the Canada National Parks Act for Torngat Mountains National Park Reserve in 2005 resulting in the addition of over 30,000 km2 of protected land added to the national parks system. Figure 2 illustrates the number of represented regions and operational parks, and total size of the national parks system.

Figure 2: Number of Parks Canada’s 39 Terrestrial Regions Represented in the System

  As of March 31st
  2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003
# of 39 natural terrestrial regions represented in system 28 28 28 27 27 25
# of operational national parks 42 42 42 41 41 39
Km² of operational national parks 276,240 276,240 276,240 265,000 265,000 244,540
Source: Table and Map on Growth of the System of National Parks and National Park Reserves of Canada.
Note: A region may be represented by a national park or national park reserve (i.e., a reserve is an area managed as a national park, but where the lands are subject to one or more land claims by Aboriginal people that have been accepted for negotiation by Canada). And a region is considered represented when a national park or park reserve is operational (i.e., when a park establishment agreement has been signed by the Minister, with Cabinet approval; when the land has been transferred to Canada, and when the authority to operate has been established under various provincial, territorial and/or federal regulations).

Progress is being made on four other proposals. Feasibility studies for the Mealy Mountains and South Okanagan-Lower Similkameen proposals are in their final stages. Aboriginal support is being sought for the Bathurst Island proposal to proceed to negotiating a park agreement. The proposal for the East Arm of Great Slave Lake, also at a feasibility study stage, took a major step forward this year with Minister of Environment’s announcement of a land withdrawal from new mineral development while discussions continue.

Situational analysis

Of the five steps in the establishment process, the feasibility study (step 3) in particular takes time because Parks Canada works in a complex external environment. The feasibility work is about advancing an important federal conservation program within a context of federal–provincial relations, Aboriginal rights and claims, and the commitment to consult in a meaningful way. The Agency is making long-term and enduring investments in the future during these studies and it takes time to get it right. The planning process must also ensure that an integrated approach to the mandate is considered, requiring natural and social science research and developing an understanding of the regional context. Relationship building and collaboration are critical aspects of reaching a successful outcome, in the form of public support for a proposed park to move on to the next stage of negotiating an agreement.

Results achievement could be delayed by policy challenges related to land use and jurisdictional priorities, by shifting provincial expectations, by the need to build support, by other department priorities, and by the impact of court decisions. For example, no progress was made on the Wolf Lake proposal this past year. As such, Parks Canada may need to explore opportunities to identify alternate candidate areas in the Northern Interior Plateaux and Mountains. In response to a request from First Nations, Parks Canada has adopted a measured pace on the Manitoba Lowlands proposal to ensure that the First Nations have sufficient support and time to actively engage community members. The Mealy Mountains feasibility study is nearly complete, pending provincial deliberations on the proposed boundary.

For all of the above reasons, the date for achieving representation of five unrepresented regions has been extended to 2010 in the 2008-2009 Corporate Plan. Representing two additional regions by 2010 is reasonable although it remains a challenge.

National Marine Conservation Areas

A National Marine Conservation Areas System Plan, (1995) titled Sea to Sea to Sea, (www.pc.gc.ca) divides Canada’s oceanic waters and Great Lakes into 29 natural marine regions. The long-term goal is to represent each of these regions with at least one national marine conservation area (NMCA). National marine conservation areas are managed for sustainable use, and include highly protected zones surrounded by multiple-use areas where fishing, aquaculture and marine transportation are permitted.


Performance Expectation

Increase the number of represented marine regions from two in March 2003 to four of 29 by March 2008.

Performance Status

As of March 31, 2008, three out of 29 marine regions were represented. During this reporting period, an agreement for Lake Superior National Marine Conservation Area was signed. The goal of representing two additional marine regions has been 50% achieved.

Situational analysis

The Prime Minister of Canada and the Minister of the Environment announced an agreement with the government of Ontario to establish a national marine conservation area in Northern Lake Superior. A memorandum of understanding with the Northern Superior First Nations was signed at the same time, and will lead to their active engagement in the management and stewardship of the national marine conservation area. This immense and magnificent area of about 10,000 km2  – a stunning seascape featuring a diversity of plant and animal life – is the largest freshwater protected area in the entire world.

Significant progress has been made towards a Canada/Haida collaborative management agreement for the proposed Gwaii Haanas NMCA Reserve, which will represent two additional marine regions when established. A feasibility study for a proposed Southern Strait of Georgia NMCA is well advanced and one is in an early stage for a proposal in the marine waters around les Îles-de-la-Madeleine. Preliminary consultations have begun for a proposal in Lancaster Sound, with feasibility funding announced as part of Health of Oceans funding in the 2007 Federal Government Budget.

While the factors outlined for national park establishment also apply to proposed national marine conservation areas, these projects are made even more complex due to the various resource activities such as fishing, shipping, and aquaculture and other jurisdictions that need to be considered since ecologically sustainable use is an important part of managing a national marine conservation area.

For national marine conservation areas, there is one additional step in the establishment process. Before formal establishment under the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act can take place, the legislation requires that an interim management plan be submitted to Parliament, with public input. These plans have begun to be developed for the proposed Gwaii Haanas NMCA and Lake Superior NMCA, with the first step being to set up advisory/collaborative management groups.

For the various reasons described above, the date for achieving four represented marine regions has been extended to 2010 in the 2008-2009 Corporate Plan.

Planned Result

Designate and Commemorate Places, Persons and Events of National Historic Significance.

National Historic Sites of Canada System Plan (2000) (www.pc.gc.ca) presents a strategy to commemorate places, persons, and events of national historic significance. Implementation of the plan is the responsibility of several different stakeholders; the public, who makes most of the nominations for designation; the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada (HSMBC), which reviews all submissions and recommends the designation of places, persons and events that represent nationally significant aspects of Canadian history; and the Minister of the Environment, who makes the final designations. Parks Canada’s role involves publicizing the process, receiving and screening designations, preparing background papers for the HSMBC, acting as secretariat for the HSMBC, and preparing submissions, based on HSMBC recommendations, for the Minister. Additional information on the HSMBC is available on the Parks Canada website (www.pc.gc.ca).


Performance Expectation

Designate, on average, 24 new places, persons and events per year.

Performance Status

In 2007-2008, on an average over three years, 28 designations of new places, persons and events were made per year as shown in Figure 3.

Situational analysis

To reach that result, the Minister of the Environment made 45 new designations in 2007-2008. This number is attributed in large measure to the Minister’s approval of outstanding recommendations of the HSMBC arising from its meetings in December 2005 (18) and June 2006 (23); other recommendations (4) arose from 2007-2008 meetings.

Figure 3: Status of Ministerial Designations of Places, Persons and Events

  2007-2008 2006-2007 2005-2006
Balance as of April 1

       New Designations

       Net Adjustments
1,897

45

0
1,875

21

+1
1,859

19

-3
Balance as of March 31 1,942 1,897 1,875
Average over 3 years 28 16 16
Source: Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada Secretariat database and Directory of Federal Heritage Designation
Adjustments to the number of designations result from the destruction of the listed asset, discovery of double-counted or uncounted previous designations, or reassessment of the status of a listed site.

As of March 31, 2008, Canada’s System of National Historic Sites includes 935 national historic sites. Of these, 158 are administered by Parks Canada. The system also includes 612 national historic persons and 395 national historic events as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Status of Designations by Type as of March 2008

Type All 2007-2008
Places 935 12
Persons 612 15
Events 395 18
Total 1,942 45

Parks Canada will continue to strengthen and expand partnerships with diverse communities and national associations to encourage nominations to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada.

PROGRAM ACTIVITY 2: CONSERVE HERITAGE RESOURCES

Planned Result

Maintain or Improve the Ecological Integrity of National Parks.

The Canada National Parks Act defines ecological integrity as:

A condition that is determined to be characteristic of its natural region and likely to persist, including abiotic (devoid of life) components and the composition and abundance of native species and biological communities, rates of changes and supporting processes”.


Performance Expectation

Develop fully functioning ecological integrity monitoring and reporting systems for all national parks by March 2008.

Performance Status

Thirty-two (32) national parks representing 76% of Canada’s 42 national parks have met the initial conditions for a functioning ecological integrity monitoring and reporting system as shown in Figure 5. This represents a significant achievement over the last five years and specifically an improvement of 71% in this reporting period alone. The remaining parks (Torngat Mountains, Quttinirpaaq, Sirmilik, Auyuittuq, Ukkusiksalik, Aulavik, Tuktut Nogait, Ivvavik, Elk Island, Riding Mountain), especially those in the far north, are the least advanced. However, half of the conditions have been met on their respective ecological integrity monitoring and reporting systems.

Situational analysis

The 32 parks, having a functioning ecological integrity monitoring system, met the most challenging condition of  “Ecologically Comprehensive”; an increase of 12 parks from the previous year as shown in Figure 5. This condition is the most challenging because it requires the capacity of comprehension and evaluation of the entire monitoring program including park conservation priorities, consideration of all park ecosystems as well as the monitoring framework of biodiversity, function and stressors. Twenty-six (26) new parks met the “Clear Questions” condition in this reporting cycle, an increase of 62%. Finally, all 42 parks have recorded results in the Information Centre on Ecosystems thereby meeting the condition of “Information Recorded”, an increase of 24 parks (57%) from 2006-2007.

Northern parks present the biggest challenges for developing a functioning ecological monitoring system. High staff turnover is the largest challenge for planning a program representative of the major northern ecosystem. Furthermore, the large geographic area of most of these parks presents logistical monitoring challenges. Nonetheless, four of the 12 northern parks (Kluane, Vuntut, Nahanni, Wapusk) have already managed to overcome these challenges in the development of their systems. The ten parks, which did not meet initial conditions, are engaged in revising their monitoring and reporting work plans by the end of the 2008-2009 fiscal year.

Figure 5: Initial Conditions for a Fully Functional Monitoring and Reporting System

Figure 5: Initial Conditions for a Fully Functional Monitoring and Reporting System

The progress made in the establishment of an ecological integrity monitoring and reporting system in 2007-2008 for communicating to Canadians the condition of, and improvements to, the state of ecological integrity in Canada’s national parks represents a significant accomplishment for the Agency. The ecological integrity monitoring system provides the baseline information for on-going reporting on the state of ecological integrity in Canada’s national parks. It is also the basis for the Agency’s State of the Park Report, Performance Report and State of Protected Heritage Areas Report and is linked to the park management planning cycle.


Performance Expectation

Improve aspects of the state of ecological integrity in each of Canada’s 42 national parks by March 2014.

Performance Status

Over the last five years, the Agency has implemented a significant number of initiatives in the area of active management and restoration. To date, over 70 active management and restoration projects have been implemented in 37 national parks, with over 200 specific ecological integrity measures identified to assess improvements in ecological integrity.  All of these ecological integrity innovation and species at risk recovery projects are tracked through a project tracking system, and specific short-term targets have been identified for achieving improvements in ecological integrity by March 2014.  There is currently incomplete information to assess the impact of these projects. 

During this reporting period, Parks Canada led the development of the Principles and Guidelines for Ecological Restoration in Canada’s Protected Natural Areas, the first-ever Canada-wide guidance for ecological restoration practices.This document has been endorsed by all Ministers responsible for national, provincial and territorial parks in Canada, as well as by the Canadian Council on Ecological Areas, and provides a tool for the Parks Canada Agency and its partners to maintain and improve healthy natural ecosystems, with the meaningful engagement of Canadians in the process.

Situational analysis

The ecological integrity of many national parks is being degraded as a result of habitat fragmentation, air and water pollution, climate change, biodiversity loss, invasive alien species, wildlife disease and incompatible land uses. Active management and restoration offers tools to help halt or reverse this degradation.  The three following examples are typical of the type of results the Agency has obtained in maintaining and improving ecological integrity of the ecosystems found in national parks.


Example #1: Fire Management: Fires Bring New Life

Fire has always had a significant role in the maintenance of healthy natural ecosystems; fire recycles nutrients in the soil, helps encourage new plant growth, controls invasive alien species, and creates important habitat for birds and animals. Parks Canada seeks to reduce wildfire risk and approximate the ecological effects of the long-term historical fire regime that is characteristic of each park and site.

Approximately 60% of parks are actively managing fire, 41% of parks/sites with fire dependent/fire prone vegetation have clear fire/vegetation management objectives in their management plans (up from 24% in 2006-2007), and 20 fire plans (prescribed burns) covering 18,529 hectares were approved in 2007-2008.

In 2007-2008, 14 prescribed burns covering 2,082 hectares were ignited. This number is below the eight-year moving average of 15 prescribed burns covering 8,024 hectares.  In 2007-2008, Parks Canada responded to 181 wildfires, which resulted in 223,115 hectares burned. This is well above the eight-year average of 76 wildfires, and above the annual average area burned. In all, 11 of the 27 parks actively managing fire have restored this process to a level of at least 20% of the annual average area that historically burned in the region. The program’s short-term target is to attain this level in 14 parks (50%).

Fires, whether set under controlled conditions or managed wildfires, contribute to healthy ecosystems and, along with other factors, may result in changes to the stressor rating of individual parks. Proper use of fire in our national parks has improved the ecological integrity of these special places.


 


Example #2: Species at Risk Recovery Actions and Public Engagement, Kejimkujik National Park and Historic Site

Under the Species at Risk Act, Parks Canada is responsible for the protection and recovery of listed species at risk and their habitats found in national parks, national marine conservation areas, national historic sites and other protected heritage areas administered by Parks Canada.

Kejimkujik National Park and Historic Site and its surrounding ecosystem are Atlantic Canada’s hot spot for species at risk. Fourteen (14) species in the area are listed under the federal Species at Risk Act, and the park is leading recovery efforts for three species: the Blanding’s turtle, eastern ribbonsnake and water-pennywort. Although results have been achieved this year for protecting eastern ribbonsnake and the water-pennywort, this report highlights the results for recovery of the Blanding’s turtles, reflecting the Agency’s understanding of this species habitat and recovery needs.

Recovery efforts require many years of sustained effort.  The Kejimkujik project is primarily focused on enhancing critically small populations of Blanding’s turtles to remove them from imminent risk of extinction while defining and addressing the root causes of their decline.  Park managers have established a very strong volunteer stewardship program to involve park visitors, neighbouring communities, and local Mi’kmaq in recovery activities.
                                                                                                                                                                                                   
In 2007-2008, 84 volunteers contributed more than 1500 hours to protect 19 Blanding’s turtle nests in Kejimkujik National Park and Historic Site. The volunteers have been involved in a combination of nest screening to protect eggs from predators and increasing protection for road-edge nesting turtles. The park is on track to release 35 head-started turtles in 2008. In the summer of 2007, long-time park volunteers discovered a new population of turtles in an area adjacent to the park – only the fourth such population in the province. With the help of these and other volunteers, a total of 38 Blanding’s turtle nests in Southwest Nova Scotia have been successfully protected. The short term targets are to maintain or improve the current rate of 60% egg survivorship and to improve the 12% hatchling success through the head-start program.


 


Example #3: Amphibian Tunnels in Waterton Lakes National Parks

A unique approach to ecological restoration is underway in Waterton Lakes National Park. Long-toed salamanders suffer 10-40% annual mortality, crossing a busy road that separates the wetland, where the species breeds, from the rest of its habitat.  While much still needs to be researched regarding the lifecycle of this species, recent studies suggest a steep decline in the population.  Road mortality also affects other amphibians and reptiles attracted to the wetland. 

Specially designed culverts will be installed to allow the animals to pass safely under the road. The targets for this project are to reduce the mortality rate related to the road crossing and to increase the population from its most recent low of 289 individuals. 

Though considerable success has been achieved in communicating the value of the project to local and national media and in establishing a university partnership to study the effects of the tunnels, the project has experienced delays.  The baseline study of salamander crossing before installation had to be postponed by one year to ensure that the spring migration was recorded. Challenges in procurement of the tunnels resulted in a missed opportunity to install them in the fall of 2007. Parks Canada is committed to developing a new long-term funding process that is aligned with the park’s annual business planning cycle and that will allow plenty of lead time to implement priority projects such as these in the future.


Finally, this performance expectation has been modified as part of the strategic outcome and program activity architecture review to allow for clearer reporting at a corporate level. Parks Canada published in its 2008-2009 Corporate Plan the performance expectation as being: 90% of national parks have at least one improved ecological integrity indicator from March 2008 to March 2013. With an ecological integrity monitoring system in place, with national principles and guidelines for ecological restoration in place, Parks Canada will be in a better position to report on ecological integrity improvements as a result of active management restoration projects.

Planned Result

Maintain or Improve the Commemorative Integrity of National Historic Sites, and the State of Other Cultural Resources Administered by Parks Canada.

Parks Canada administers 158 national historic sites located throughout the country. Each of these sites commemorates a significant example of Canada’s history and their commemorative integrity is achieved when:

  • Resources directly related to the reasons for the site’s designation as a national historic site are not impaired or under threat;
  • The reasons for the site’s designation as a national historic site are effectively communicated to the public; and
  • The site’s heritage values are respected in all decisions and actions affecting the site.

Following designation, each national historic site is responsible to develop a commemorative integrity statement (please consult the Parks Canada website at www.pc.gc.ca for more information on this process). Once a commemorative integrity statement has been completed, the Agency conducts an evaluation to determine the site’s current state of commemorative integrity. The commemorative integrity evaluation rates three elements, resource condition (RC), effectiveness of communications (EC) and selected management practices (MP) on a good, fair and poor scale. 

As of March 31, 2008, 119 out of 138 national historic sites having a commemorative integrity statement have been evaluated. The results of these evaluations can be found in Figure 6. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of all the ratings for the 119 national historic sites are good or fair. 

Figure 6: Status of Commemorative Integrity of Specific Parks Canada Administered National Historic Sites

Overall 
% of
Ratings
(n=119)
2007-2008
(n=22)
2006-2007
(n=20)
2005-2006
(n=19)
2004-2005
(n=13)
2003-2004
(n=14)
2002-2003
(n=18)
2001-2002
(n=13)
RC EC MP RC EC MP RC EC MP RC EC MP RC EC MP RC EC MP RC EC MP
Good 28% 7 3 10 8 6 4 5 6 6 5 3 2 6 2 5 4 1 0 5 3 7
Fair 50% 13 11 8 11 7 12 10 7 9 6 5 8 8 9 7 9 10 13 7 5 5
Poor 22% 2 8 4 1 7 4 4 6 4 2 5 3 0 3 2 5 7 5 1 5 1
Source: Commemorative Integrity database
Sites selected for evaluation each year represent a mix of size and location and differ in their complexity of operation and themes. New sites are selected for evaluation each year and no site has been evaluated more than once.  It cannot be assumed that the sites nor the commemorative integrity ratings of the specific sites are representative of other national historic sites administered by Parks Canada.

Each national historic site with poor ratings on one or more elements of commemorative integrity is reassessed five years after the original commemorative integrity evaluation to determine whether actions have been taken to improve these elements and whether improvements occurred. In 2007-2008, Parks Canada reviewed its reassessment methodology to align it with the formal commemorative integrity evaluation methodology for enhanced reliability. These reassessments are conducted by Parks Canada staff and include representatives from national office, field units, service centres and the national historic site being reassessed.

Sites originally evaluated six years ago were reassessed in this reporting period in comparison to baseline data from the initiation of the commemorative integrity evaluation program in 2001-2002. In order to move to a five-year cycle, reassessments will be accelerated in 2008-2009 to include those national historic sites originally evaluated in 2002-2003 and 2003-2004.


Performance Expectation

Improve 75% of the elements of commemorative integrity rated as poor to at least fair condition, within five years of the original assessment.

Performance Status

Seven elements rated as poor in 2001-2002 (highlighted in Figure 6) were reassessed in 2007-2008.  Four of them have been improved to at least fair within six years of the original assessment. Parks Canada achieved a 57 % improvement as shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Results of the Reassessment of Commemorative Integrity Elements Rated as Poor in 2001-2002

National Historic Site Initial Commemorative Integrity ratings
2001-2002
2007-2008
Reassessment Rating
Resource Condition Effectiveness of
Communications
Selected Management Practices
Butler’s Barracks (Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON)   POOR   POOR
Cape Spear (Cape Spear, NL)   POOR   POOR
Jasper Park Information Centre (Jasper, AB) POOR POOR   POOR (EC)
GOOD (RC)
Gitwangak Battle Hill (Kitwanga, BC)     POOR GOOD
Riel House (Winnipeg, MB)   POOR   GOOD
S.S. Keno (Dawson, YT)   POOR   GOOD

% of Poor Ratings Improved 100% 40% 100% 57%

Source: Parks Canada’s Reassessment of Sites With Poor Ratings

Situational analysis

Detailed information regarding the specific actions undertaken at the sites referred to in Figure 7 to improve elements of commemorative integrity rated as poor is provided below.

Butler’s Barracks – This site is making progress towards improving its rating for Effectiveness of Communications.  Information on the Parks Canada website about this site has been improved since 2002.  As well, new interpretive panels have been installed on-site and provide information about the history of the site but do not effectively convey the reasons for national significance.

Cape Spear – This site is also making progress towards improving its rating for Effectiveness of Communications. Since 2001, there have been modest improvements in the communication program at this site. As a result of changes to the staff training program, message delivery by staff during the operational season has improved with a stronger focus on providing messages related to the reasons for designation of the site. Key site messages, however, are not yet delivered to the majority of visitors.

Jasper Park Information Centre – This site has shown significant improvement in its rating for Resource Condition.  Structural elements of the building at the Jasper Information Centre have been upgraded and enhanced. Many attributes of the historic value, previously hidden, have been revealed and can now be more easily communicated to visitors.  Since 2002, information on the Parks Canada website about this site has been enhanced to improve the Effectiveness of Communications element, however, further work to convey the reasons for designation and other related messages has not yet been implemented.

Gitwangak Battle Hill (formerly Kitwanga Fort) – This site has shown significant improvement in its rating for Selected Management Practices.  Improvements have been made to the inventory and evaluation of archaeological sites and objects, especially the oral history tapes that are currently being transcribed to preserve them for the future. Cultural resource management practices are being incorporated at the site and a conservation plan is now in place.

Riel House – This site has shown significant improvement in its rating for Effectiveness of Communications through numerous additions to their programming, including updated interpretive media, enhanced site tours and new education initiatives. This site is operated by a third party and guides are provided with extensive training which includes references to the Cultural Resource Management Policy, as well as the Parks Canada Charter and the process for designation. Staff are able to place and present Riel House in its context and within the Parks Canada system.

S.S. Keno – This site has shown significant improvement in its rating for Effectiveness of Communications. Since 2001, a new exhibit kiosk has been installed adjacent to the site and conveys a number of messages identified in the site’s Commemorative Integrity Statement. The freight deck of the vessel is now open for public tours and effectively incorporates the messages related to the reasons for designation.
 
Overall, these reassessed sites have taken steps to improve their ratings, some with great success and others requiring further work to ensure their commemorative integrity. For 2008-2009, the performance expectations related to commemorative integrity are set as follow: 70% of the condition of cultural resources and management practices and 75% of the communication element rated as poor are improved within five years. The targets for the condition of cultural resources and management practices have been reduced to allow greater emphasis to be placed on the communication element which has been identified as a priority within the Agency. Budget Plan 2005 established long-term funding to assist in the protection of cultural heritage assets and Parks Canada continues to work towards improving the state of commemorative integrity at its national historic sites.

PROGRAM ACTIVITY 3: PROMOTE PUBLIC APPRECIATION AND UNDERSTANDING

Planned Result

Encourage the Support and Involvement of Canadians and Stakeholders and Their Knowledge and Appreciation of Canada’s Heritage Places.


Performance Expectation

Develop indicators, expectations and protocols for measuring public appreciation and understanding of Canadians and stakeholders by May 2007.

As stated in Section 1, Parks Canada is implementing, through its 2008-2009 Corporate Plan, a revised strategic outcome and program activity architecture. As part of this exercise, this program activity was further analysed and refined, and constitutes the basis for a new assessment of results for this performance expectation.

Public appreciation and understanding aims to reach Canadians, particularly youth and urban audiences, at home, at leisure, at school and in their communities through effective and relevant learning opportunities designed to increase understanding, appreciation, support and engagement towards natural and historic heritage places. To accomplish this, Parks Canada is collaborating with audiences and strategic partners within formal, informal and non-formal learning contexts.

Using a diversity of carefully targeted outreach education approaches, such as the Parks Canada website, broadcasting and new media, integration into urban venues and introduction of content into school curricula, the Agency helps build a connection to place essential to achieving its mandate. Parks Canada also intends to broaden its base of support by involving its many stakeholders, and encouraging shared leadership in the development and implementation of the Agency’s future direction.

Performance Status

Expected results, indicators and performance expectations for measuring public appreciation and understanding of Canadians and stakeholders were established during 2007-2008 as presented in Figure 8. No other tools were developed or procedures for measurement and analysis undertaken during this reporting period.

Figure 8: Expected Results, Indicators and Performance Expectations for Measuring Public Appreciation and Understanding

Program Activity Level Public Appreciation and Understanding
Expected Result Indicator Performance Expectation
Canadians appreciate the significance of heritage places administered by Parks Canada and understand the importance of protecting and presenting them. Canadians appreciate the significance of heritage places administered by Parks Canada. Establish a baseline by March 2009 for the percentage of Canadians that appreciate the significance of heritage places administered by Parks Canada.
Canadians understand the importance of protecting and presenting heritage places administered by Parks Canada. Establish a baseline by March 2009 for the percentage of Canadians that understand the importance of protecting and presenting heritage places administered by Parks Canada.

Situational analysis

Parks Canada aims to ensure that Canadians appreciate the significance of its heritage places by communicating that these places were established because they are representative of Canada's natural and historical heritage. The Agency also aims to ensure that Canadians understand the importance of protecting and presenting these heritage places so that they are enjoyed in ways that leave them unimpaired for present and future generations.

At the broadest spectrum, Parks Canada communicates and has relationships with all Canadians. However, most communications are more targeted to ensure economy and effectiveness. Parks Canada selects the most relevant target audiences based on available information and emerging trends; current targets comprise urban Canadians, youth and ethnocultural groups. Parks Canada’s stakeholders and partners are broadly based, representing individuals, groups and organizations that maintain a vested interest in the Agency’s activities. They include Canada’s organized natural and historical heritage non-governmental organizations, business associations and partners, foundations and other public sector organizations.

In order for Parks Canada to ensure effective and relevant learning opportunities a baseline measurement for the indicators must be established. In 2008-2009, quantitative measurement tools will be developed and/or revised (e.g., Parks Canada’s national survey of Canadians) and research will be conducted to set these baseline values by March 2009. Measurement protocols such as frequency and timing of measurement, alignment of tools with other reporting programs, sampling methods for target groups, and analytical approaches for individual performance expectations will also be established.

PROGRAM ACTIVITY 4: ENHANCE VISITOR EXPERIENCE

Planned Result

Facilitate Experiences that Provide Learning Opportunities, Visitor Satisfaction and Personal Connections.

The Visitor Information Program (VIP) uses a standard visitor questionnaire to provide information to managers of national parks, national historic sites and national marine conservation areas about their visitors, including their use of products and services, satisfaction with products and services, and other aspects of their visit. Selection of individual protected areas to participate in the VIP each year is aligned, as much as possible, with the timing of management planning and reporting requirements. The results from an individual VIP questionnaire do not apply to all visitors throughout the year at a particular national park, national historic site or national marine conservation area, nor to visitors who did not visit the surveyed location, nor to other national parks, national historic sites or national marine conservation areas in the system that did not field the questionnaire. The national parks, national historic sites and national marine conservation areas that participate in the VIP program over a five-year cycle account for 98% of the total recorded visits to Parks Canada administered heritage places.

For this reporting period, VIP results were received from three national parks (St. Lawrence Islands, Bruce Peninsula and Prince Albert) and 16 national historic sites (Grand Pré, Fort Beauséjour, Signal Hill, Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, Coteau-du-Lac, Sir George-Étienne Cartier, The Fur Trade at Lachine, Artillery Park, Lévis Forts, Trent-Severn Waterway, Hamilton Discovery Centre, Fort Wellington, Laurier House, Chilkoot Trail, Gulf of Georgia Cannery and Fort Rodd Hill/Fisgard Lighthouse). No national marine conservation areas were surveyed.


Performance Expectation

50% of visitors to national parks and national marine conservation areas and 80% of visitors to national historic sites will participate in learning experiences at all surveyed sites.

Performance Status

On the VIP questionnaire, visitors are asked to identify themselves as users/participants of specific learning products or services prior to rating level of satisfaction with the individual products/services.12 On average 72% of the visitors at the three participating national parks in 2007-2008 used at least one heritage presentation product or service. On average 91% of visitors to the 16 surveyed historic sites in 2007-2008 reported they used at least one heritage presentation product or service.

The level of participation in heritage presentation programs and activities is usually higher for national historic sites/canals than national parks. One key reason for the difference in participation between parks and historic sites is that heritage presentation is a core element of the visitor experience at historic sites, while many visitors to national parks come primarily for recreational purposes.


Performance Expectation

85% of visitors are satisfied, and 50% are very satisfied, with their experience at all surveyed sites.

Performance Status

On the VIP questionnaire, visitors are asked to rate their satisfaction with several aspects of their visit13 and their overall satisfaction, on a five-point scale ranging from five (very satisfied) to one (not at all satisfied). Results for the last five years are shown in Figures 9 and 10. At all locations surveyed this past year, the visitor satisfaction targets were met or exceeded.

Figure 9: Visitors Satisfaction with Overall Visit at National Parks

Year 2007-2008 2006-2007 2005-2006 2004-2005 2003-2004
 # of Sites Surveyed 3 3 9 1 1
85% of Visitors Satisfied met met met met met
50% of Visitors Very Satisfied met met met met met
Source: Parks Canada Visitor Information Program

Figure 10: Visitors Satisfaction with Overall Visit at National Historic Sites

Year 2007-2008 2006-2007 2005-2006 2004-2005 2003-2004
 # of Sites Surveyed 16 11 13 8 6
85% of Visitors Satisfied met met met met met
50% of Visitors Very Satisfied met met met met met
Source: Parks Canada Visitor Information Program

Situational analysis for both performance expectations

There were 1.8 million visitors to the 19 surveyed locations during the peak survey period of June to September 2007.

For the three national parks surveyed, 5,241 visitors were asked to participate – 3,629 of those agreed to participate and 1,345 questionnaires were completed and returned. For the 16 national historic sites surveyed, 10,630 visitors were asked to participate – 7,550 agreed to participate and 5,272 questionnaires were completed and returned.

The response rate (i.e., the percentage of visitors approached to participate in the survey who returned questionnaires) for heritage places surveyed in 2007-2008 was 46% (overall average). Amongst the 16 national historic sites, response rates were between 36% and 80%, which is consistent with previous years; response rates for the three national parks were 16%, 22% and 73%.