State of Protected Heritage Areas Report, April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2009

2008–2009 Parks Canada Agency Performance

Strategic Outcome: Canadians have a strong sense of connection, through meaningful experiences, to their national parks, national historic sites and national marine conservation areas and these protected places are enjoyed in ways that leave them unimpaired for present and future generations.
Performance Expectations and 2008—2009 Performance
1. Maintain or improve the overall ecological integrity in all national parks from March 2008 to March 2013.
As of March 2009, 93% of Canada's national parks identified key indicators of ecological integrity and 60% identified the status and trends of these indicators, providing a picture of the overall ecological integrity of a park upon which maintenance or improvement will be evaluated in 2013.
2. Improve the overall average commemorative integrity rating from 6.0/10 in March 2008 to 6.6/10 in March 2013.
As of March 2009, Parks Canada achieved an overall average commemorative integrity rating of 6.4. This includes data for the 133 sites evaluated by that date, and new results for sites where re-evaluations have taken place.
3. Establish a baseline by March 2009 for the % of Canadians that report a personal connection to Parks Canada administered places.
Parks Canada conducted a National Survey of Canadians that was used to establish a baseline. The baseline, an index derived from a series of behaviour- and attitude-based questions, showed that 55% of Canadians report a personal connection to places administered by Parks Canada.

Heritage Places Establishment

Actual Spending: $33,594,000
Full time equivalent: 111

Expected Results:
Represented regions in the systems of national parks and national marine conservation areas; the system of national historic sites represents the breadth and diversity of Canada's history.

Performance Expectations:
Increase the number of represented terrestrial natural regions from 25 in March 2003 to 30 of 39 by March 2010.

As of March 31, 2009, 28 terrestrial natural regions were represented. No new regions were represented in 2008—2009. Progress was made on seven projects to establish or expand parks. Parks Canada's performance related to this expectation will be assessed in 2010.

33% of yearly-recommended designations are for under-represented themes in Canada's history.

The Minister of the Environment announced 44 new designations in 2008—2009, 28 of which were in under-represented themes in Canada's history, representing 63% of the total number of new designations. Of the designations in underrepresented themes, 8 were women, 2 were Aboriginal, 11 were ethnocultural communities, and 7 touched more than one theme. This performance expectation was exceeded.

Increase the number of represented marine regions from 2 in March 2003 to 4 of 29 by March 2010.

As of March 31, 2009, 3 marine regions were represented. No new marine regions were represented in 2008—2009. Progress was made on four projects. Parks Canada's performance related to this expectation will be assessed in 2010.

See Annex 1 for details on the status of the representation of terrestrial and marine regions.

See Annex 2 for details on the status of the representation of the breadth and diversity of Canada's history.


Heritage Resources Conservation

Actual Spending: $216,807,000
Full time equivalent: 1,499

Expected Results:
Management actions result in improvements to ecological integrity indicators in national parks, and the state of cultural resources in national historic sites is improved.

Performance Expectations:
90% of national parks have at least 1 improved ecological integrity indicator from March 2008 to March 2013.

As of 2008—2009, 39 national parks, representing 93% of Canada's national parks, have identified key indicators of ecological integrity. 25 parks have already determined the status and trend of these indicators, providing the baseline information against which improvements in ecological integrity indicators will be evaluated in 2013. Priority active management and restoration initiatives for improving ecological integrity indicators were identified in 24 national parks, representing 57% of all national parks.

70% of the condition of cultural resources elements of commemorative integrity rated as poor are improved within 5 years (of the original assessment).

This performance expectation was mostly met (60%) as 3 of 5 national historic sites with the condition of cultural resources elements rated as poor-Battle of the Windmill, Fort Henry and Twin Falls Teahouse-improved that rating within 5 years.

70% of the management practices elements of commemorative integrity rated as poor are improved within 5 years (of the original assessment).

This performance expectation was exceeded as 5 of 7 national historic sites (71%) with the management practices elements rated as poor-Alexander Graham Bell, Carillon Canal, Battle of Châteauguay, Fort Henry and Cave and Basin-improved that rating within 5 years. Fort George and Fort Mississauga national historic sites did not improve their rating.

See Annex 3 for details on the state of national parks.

See Annex 4 for details on the state of national historic sites.


Public Appreciation and Understanding

Actual Spending: $40,121,000
Full time equivalent: 103

Expected Results:
Canadians appreciate the significance of heritage places administered by Parks Canada and support their protection and their presentation.

Performance Expectations:
Establish a baseline by March 2009 for the % of Canadians that appreciate the significance of heritage places administered by Parks Canada.

A baseline was established using the results of the National Survey of Canadians. Parks Canada now knows that 53% of Canadians appreciate the significance of heritage places. This means that Canadians understand why places administered by Parks Canada are established/designated; they consider it important that they visit places administered by Parks Canada; they feel that it is important that places administered by Parks Canada are enjoyed by current and future generations; and they consider that places administered by Parks Canada are a source of pride. This performance expectation was met.

Establish a baseline by March 2009 for the % of Canadians that understand the importance of protecting and presenting heritage places administered by Parks Canada.

A baseline was established using the results of the National Survey of Canadians. Parks Canada now knows that 67% of Canadians understand the importance of protecting and presenting the heritage places administered by Parks Canada. This means that Canadians understand the importance that Parks Canada places on protecting (establishment, designation and sustainability) and presenting (opportunities to discover and experience) national parks and national historic sites. This performance expectation was met.

See Annex 5 for details on Public Appreciation and Understanding.


Visitor Experience

Actual Spending: $283,118,000
Full time equivalent: 2,461

Expected Results:
Visitors at surveyed locations feel a sense of personal connection to the places visited.

Performance Expectations:
Establish a baseline by March 2009 for the % of visitors at surveyed locations that consider the place is meaningful to them.

A baseline was established at 4 national parks and 11 national historic sites surveyed between June and September 2008 (peak visitor season). Visitors were asked to respond to the statement, “Now that I have been here, this location is meaningful to me.” On average, 86% of visitors considered the place meaningful to them. This performance expectation was met.

85% of visitors at surveyed locations are satisfied with their visit.

14 of 15 surveyed locations (4 national parks and 11 national historic sites) met or exceeded the target of 85% of visitors being satisfied with their visit.On average, 93% of visitors at these locations were satisfied with their visit. This performance expectation was met.

50% of visitors at surveyed locations are very satisfied with their visit.

13 of 15 surveyed locations (4 national parks and 11 national historic sites) met or exceeded the target of 50% of visitors being very satisfied with their visit. On average, 63% of visitors at these locations were very satisfied with their visit. This performance expectation was mostly met.

See Annexes 3 and 4 for details on Visitor Experience.


Townsite and Throughway Infrastructure

Actual Spending: $110,149,000
Full time equivalent: 340

Expected Results:
Condition of contemporary infrastructure for townsites and waterways is maintained or improved and through highways are open to traffic.

Performance Expectations:
The condition of 75% of townsite contemporary assets is maintained, and the condition of 25% of assets rated as poor or fair is improved by March 2013.

The Agency began the review of condition ratings in 2008—2009. Parks Canada will measure its performance against the new condition ratings by 2013. Nonetheless, Parks Canada invested in 20 projects, with a total value of $11.6 million, to maintain or improve asset condition. Parks Canada is pursuing a Real Property Management System to improve management of assets. Parks Canada's performance related to this expectation will be assessed in 2013.

The condition of 75% of waterway contemporary assets is maintained, and the condition of 25% of assets rated as poor or fair is improved by March 2013.

Parks Canada is pursuing a Real Property Management System to improve management of assets as there is no national inventory and condition rating for through waterways. However, in 2008—2009, Parks Canada initiated the inspection and classification of dams, developed a Dam Safety Program Directive and a Bridge Inspection Directive. Parks Canada's performance related to this expectation will be assessed in 2013.

Zero (0) days of closure of through highways due to asset condition.

Parks Canada observed no closures due to asset condition of the 1,026 kilometres of through highways that pass through 17 national parks and 1 national historic site. This performance expectation was met.

For more details on Parks Canada's performance for the period ending March 31, 2008, please consult the Parks Canada Agency Performance Report at: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2007-2008/index-eng.asp?acr=66

For more details on Parks Canada's performance for the period ending March 31, 2009, please consult the Parks Canada Agency Performance Report at: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/dpr-rmr/2008-2009/index-eng.asp?acr=1513