Banff National Park of Canada

Banff National Park Record of 2007 Forum

Record of 2007 Forum

[ Table of Contents | Next ]

1.0 Welcome and Introductions

The 10th Annual Banff National Park Planning Forum was called to order at 9:05 am by facilitator Leslie Taylor. Leslie thanked everyone for coming, reviewed the agenda, covered logistics and housekeeping announcements, and mentioned the inclusion of academic observers from China.

1.1 Superintendents' opening remarks

2.1 Terry Perkins

Terry welcomed everyone and pointed out the significance of the cookie cutters celebrating the 10th anniversary of the planning forum. He continued:

The Forum is our time to meet and share our accomplishments and, more importantly, to look ahead to how we will work together to move forward on the vision and goals set out in the management plan.

With respect to the Lake Louise area of Banff National park, we are proud that our partnerships and relationships that have been developed over time have resulted in some considerable progress on the Lake Louise Area Strategy, and that included protecting resources in special ways, a lot of on-the-ground work, improved communications with the public and with the commercial operators in the area, significant work on infrastructure etc... ALL components of making the park work to stay a healthy place for the wilderness, for people that live and work here, and enhance visitor experience for people that come to visit.

We have had some significant experience in stakeholder engagement as part of the LLAS process and we have some lessons learned from that process that will help us with other activities such as in putting LATB on the ground, as well as other area strategies down the road ( for example the Icefields Parkway Planning initiative).

I'm hoping that you will find the next day and a half as valuable for you as it is for Jillian and myself .These 2 days are going to be all about our future. Our focus will be on the upcoming Banff Management Plan review, and also on the Planning Forum itself; how it works and how it can be improved, the role of the Forum, the Round Table, and how we are making the most of the knowledge, passion, and creativity that you all bring to the table.

We look forward to the discussions we'll have, and thank you all for joining us for this process.

2.2 Jillian Roulet

Jillian Roulet introduced her successor, Kevin van Tighem, who was in the public gallery.

She continued: I'd like to take the opportunity to look at the challenges that face all of us in moving forward in Banff National Park.

I think that our biggest challenge collectively is participation and engagement of stakeholders. In Banff, we have a lot of stakeholder advisory groups, they are highly successful, but it requires a huge amount of commitment, not only from the stakeholders involved in the groups, but from Parks Canada as well. I'm not sure that we're efficient with each other's time. How can we collectively manage this piece of land that we're responsible for, and do it in a responsible and collaborative way, while not wasting each other's time but really being effective?

What I see in some of the processes is that we all have issues, and at some times certain people are highly motivated to resolve particular issues, and at other time they are not. I think it's important for each of us, when we get involved in these groups, to come in with a clear sense of what we'd like to see happen on an issue, and how we can contribute to the resolution of issues, rather than to their continuance. This works best if we concentrate on resolution, rather than taking a strong initial position and refusing to budge from that. To me, it's an issue of trust, trust not only of Parks Canada but of each other, trust that can be developed only by letting our guards down and being open and honest about what our concerns are and what we really need. And, of course, to develop trust you have to spend a lot of time with each other.

Another challenge that we have is the constant need for more information and the expectation that if we can just get enough information, the problems will be solved. Information is important, but really, the problem-solving resource is in this room, it's centred on people's values and opinions. We spend a lot of time and money gathering information that is sometimes not germane to the issue at hand, and is requested more as a stalling technique than anything else. I believe we really should think hard about our information needs before we go out and gather more.

On the tourism side, I can see potentially huge changes in Banff National Park, and in other tourism destinations, over the next few decades. The international situation, the cost of travel, the environmental impacts of travel – all are bound to affect us. I don't know what the answer is, I don't know how you plan for that, but I think that the mentality that we have to have more people, and that they have to spend more money, is not a sustainable strategy. We have to move away from that in deciding how to continue to have a sustainable tourism destination without always having to have more and more people arriving.

Money is something that will continue to challenge us. In Parks Canada, we feel quite delighted that we are now able to spend our gate revenue on infrastructure in the mountain parks, but when you look at what has to be done, and you look at the money available, it's a drop in a very large bucket. There are major infrastructure issues – bridges, etc. – so, although we can be enthusiastic about having some money to spend, it is not enough, and it will never be enough to cover all our needs in rebuilding what is there. If you look at the Cave and Basin as one example: we did a great deal of work rebuilding that in the early 80s, now it has some structural issues and the interpretive media need to be updated. That's a multi-million dollar project, to bring it back to what it was in 1985. I don't see us being able to afford that, but there are other ways that we can communicate about the Cave and Basin, and stabilize the Cave and Basin. We need to look at ways of providing a very strong and improved visitor experience, just not exactly in the way we have before.

The final challenge I want to comment on is the challenge of ensuring that our protected areas are relevant to Canadians. Our demographic mix is changing, particularly in eastern and central Canada. Protected areas, at the moment, are much more relevant and meaningful to people who have grown up in Canada or have European backgrounds. What we do as a government department is in response to the wishes of all Canadians, so we have to make sure that we are relevant to new Canadians, that they want to come to our national parks and feel comfortable when they do so. That's a huge challenge for all national parks in the country.

I wanted to end with a suggestion for you. Later this morning, we're going to be talking about this annual planning forum and its future – how we want to structure it, are there better ways to do it. One of the questions is “Who's at the table?” and do we need a different mix of players and representatives at the table. I'd like to recommend a seat at the table for the new sector of “enlightened former superintendents”. I don't know if we'll have many answers, but we'll have lots of questions.

3. Round Table opening remarks

Round Table representatives were asked to answer the following questions in their brief opening remarks:

• please offer your thoughts on whether the annual planning forum and round table approach is an effective way to foster stakeholder understanding of the management plan and involvement in its implementation?, and
• From your perspective, which aspects work and which do not?

All Forum participants expressed their thanks to Parks Canada for the opportunity to speak at the Forum. To diminish repetition, these opening thanks have been removed from the remarks below.

3.1 Cheryl Borecky, Executive Director, Banff Life (Youth Organizations Sector)

For those of you that may not know, BanffLIFE strives to enhance Banff life for young adults, the businesses they work for, and the unique environment in which we live. This is accomplished by providing accessible opportunities for participation in programs that promote community awareness, healthy lifestyles and personal development. Some of our most noted programs and services including the Living Room, the Mountain Adventure Program, our Life in Banff staff orientation programs, and our banfflife.com resources. Each year BanffLIFE sees over 8,000 participants in its programs and services hundreds of thousands more with its on-line services. With almost 50% of the Banff population comprising of young adults aged 18-35, BanffLIFE plays an integral role in this community and National Park.

This is the second year the Banff Management Plan Forum provides the opportunity for a representative of all youth and young adults in the Park to provide input into this process. Therefore the roundtable and annual forum approach to the management plan is still a very new involvement for us therefore I will choose to stay very neutral on just how effective it has been over the past ten years.

I will commend Parks Canada for taking the steps to ensure at least one voice of almost half of the National Parks population is involved in this process. I do though encourage the planning forum to look forward in increasing this participation in the future. Beyond the doors of this forum there are many ways that Parks Canada needs to continue to reach the young adults of this community and ensure them their voice matters. The issues of transportation, accommodation, environmental initiatives and educational programs are important to this segment of the population and Parks Canada needs to explore new notions of engaging these individuals.

3.2 Megan Squires, Banff Heritage Corporation

I would like to start by saying that the overarching park values of Ecological Integrity and Cultural Integrity permeate the work of the Heritage Corporation and ultimately provide a framework for everything that we do. From our perspective, the Planning Forum is one way to consistently reinforce the significant role that these values play in our work and the work of all sectors here today.

Parks Canada has been true to the direction provided in the Management Plan with respect to the forum. From its inception, the forum has focused on informing stakeholders about management direction and seeking input on implementation of the plan. In recent years, Parks has introduced changes to the format of the forum to allow for more public involvement. The Heritage Corporation strongly endorses this effort.

The Heritage Corporation is curious to answer the question: what is the goal of the Planning Forum? Has it changed or evolved since 1997? Does Parks Canada still find value in the process, or is it looking for opportunities to employ new strategies? Before the Heritage Corporation can truly wade into a discussion about the effectiveness of the forum, we believe it is important to understand Parks Canada's perspective. I am hoping that over the course of these two days, Parks Canada will provide the answers to these questions.

Under the National Parks Act and in accordance with the Management Plan, Parks Canada is committed to consulting with stakeholders. The Heritage Corporation would encourage Parks Canada to continue its commitment. If the forum is deemed out of date, we would encourage Parks to explore other strategies and opportunities for input. It is our opinion that the most effective, innovative, creative decisions are those that represent diverse perspectives.

The Heritage Corporation is proud of the progress it has made this year with respect to protecting, preserving, and promoting built heritage in Banff. We have always appreciated the opportunity to be a part of this roundtable, to share our successes and achievements, as well as to hear those of other sector representatives. I look forward to an interesting two days of discussion and dialogue.

3.3 John Stutz, Mayor, Town of Banff

In answer to the questions posed …

This forum does provide an opportunity to hear the views of many organizations that may have little interaction throughout the year. Often, as a result of the forum, groups with opposing agendas are brought together to express their views. I…and I represent the views of the Town of Banff at this table today, believe this convergence of opinions has great value…there is value in having these discussions. Often, hearing different perspectives becomes the impetus for fresh thinking and new ideas.

The second part of the question is a little more difficult to address: which aspects do not work?

We understand the forum is a “requirement” for Parks Canada. The question we have is: “what does Parks Canada hope to achieve by hosting the forum?” Do you invite us to share insight and engage, so you can consider changes to your priorities and action plans? Or is this a session that you hold, simply to provide our community with an update on where you're at and what is coming down the pipe?

I leave you with this thought to consider…
What would we like to see as part of this Forum in future?

Parks Canada priorities and pillars at the national level are very clear…we would like to better understand these priorities at an operational level for Banff. We would like to hear these priorities articulated at our “PARK” level…and learn how the three pillars are implemented in our own community.

In our view, we believe this Forum should be an opportunity for engagement…where diverse groups come together to share views on how best to move Banff National Park forward. And then we'd like to clearly see how our contribution of thought is creating change or progress.

We'd like to see Town of Banff issues in your amendments to the Banff National Park Management Plan - I just haven't seen this directly to date.

Results are very important to us … ultimately, we'd like to hear less about process and more about results.

Having read your Year in Review, we are very pleased to see the progress you've made on many key projects. We would encourage you to reach out to your partners in the community – like the Town of Banff – to find ways to implement plans more quickly.

Through partnerships, we can share workloads and see the fruits of our labour. As an example, I would welcome a meeting with you to discuss how the Town can partner with you to implement key components of the newly approved LATB recommendations.

In the interest of time and hearing all our views, that about covers things for me…thanks for giving the Town the chance to comment. We look forward to future gatherings, and the opportunity this presents to learn more about the views and issues facing our Park.

3.4 Leigh Speed, Advisory Development Board

I am a member of the Advisory Development Board for Banff, Yoho and Kootenay Parks. The ADB is a volunteer board established by Parks Canada in response to the Bow Valley Study recommendations to provide independent public input into development applications within the parks. We are not a stakeholder group, in as much as we do not represent a particular industry or point of view. Volunteer members come from a diverse background with different areas of expertise and our mandate is to provide an independent third party review of development applications in Banff, Yoho and Kootenay National Parks on behalf of the Canadian public. We regard ourselves as an independent board, and we make representations to the superintendents, based on the information we receive.

Therefore, we see ourselves as a somewhat different member of the Round Table. This is my first Forum as a member sitting at the table, but I have attended 7 of the past 9 planning forums as a member of the public.

In response to the first question, yes, the ADB believes the Planning Forum is an appropriate venue for initial understanding and discussion of the Management Plan. That doesn't mean we think it's sufficient, it means we think it's a good beginning.

The Forum also came out of the BVS and appears that the objectives of the Forum are to Inform, Educate and Respond to stakeholders; provide a forum for stakeholders to report on their own activities and comment on Parks' actions; and provide an opportunity to facilitate discussion between different Parks stakeholder groups who otherwise would rarely meet.

The Forums have been successful in that role over the past 10 years but with a limited audience:

• Informing the stakeholders of Parks philosophy as expressed in parks policies
• Parks action as expressed in plans and programs including the Park Management Plans.

The same members sitting around the Table over the years illustrates the need to go beyond the ‘usual suspects' to ensure a broader involvement of the Canadian public and the local public in the Planning Forum, and in the management plan review.

The role of the Planning Forum could be expanded to disseminate information to the broader public by encouraging greater levels of public attendance at the Forum and allowing greater levels of participation by the public - as incorporated into this year's agenda. We still have to go beyond having the same people at the table, expressing largely the same views, year after year.

Over the past 9 years the Planning Forum has evolved and established a pattern that is fairly predictable.

The same institutions (stakeholders) have been represented at the Round Table year after year and quite often the same faces have said the same thing time and again, often without reference to the Forum's topics as shown in the agenda. The positions and opinions expressed by those groups have not changed over the years; in fact, they have frequently become more entrenched.

However, a positive change over the years has been the mellowing of the rhetoric around the table which has been accompanied by an increased level of goodwill between stakeholders and Parks, despite the hardening of positions and opinions. The goodwill is noticeable.

Opening the Forum up to a broader audience – national and provincial user groups for example, could result in a more diverse response to issues than currently occurs, preventing us from being too parochial in our views.

We could go a step further by streaming the Forum live on the web so people from all over the country could participate in – or at least observe -- the planning of Canada's oldest national park.

Despite the increasing goodwill over time, there does not seem to have been a noticeable trend towards consensus and working towards the same goals, nor are we getting fresh perspectives from year to year.

In summary, regarding the question, while the Planning Forum is a good starting point for review of the BNPMP, other avenues should also be followed to ensure a wider level of public input, and to bring a broader Canadian perspective to the planning of Banff National Park.

3.5 Rob Seeley, Small Business Association of Banff

The SBAB does see value in this forum. We have been bringing up infrastructure for some time, and we do see some success in this area.

The past several years have brought infrastructure re-investment in the Banff National Park by Parks Canada. Banff, Jasper and Yoho are the largest revenue producers for Parks. The Small Business Association of Banff encourages continued necessary and important infrastructure investment adding to Visitor enjoyment and safety in our National Parks. This annual planning Forum has been a key and welcome component to this success.

Our parks attract over 25 million visitors from Canada and abroad every year and provide thousands of sustainable jobs in the tourism industry. For every dollar invested in our Mountain Parks, over five dollars in generated in economic activity. Any business would be delighted with an R.O.I. of this magnitude.

We depend on a sustainable vibrant National Parks System and are happy to see re-investment in this important asset. Continued funding to rebuild and enhance our Parks is necessary and appreciated. Maybe there's never enough money, but certainly we're going in the right direction.

3.6 Dan Bell, Aquatics Advisory Group

The Aquatics Advisory Committee is a group of volunteer members of the public and stakeholders. The importance of aquatics in any ecosystem is immeasurable – water is the basis of all life, and we can only have a healthy park ecosystem if we have a healthy river system. At the last meeting of this group, we expressed the concern that the aquatics area was not being given the priority it needed. The group had not met prior to the forum, and we expressed concern about this. This year is no different. At our last aquatics meeting, we were given a date of October 3 to plan our next meeting. October 3 came and went, and not only was our meeting not held but, as far as I know, no notice of cancellation was given. Given the importance of aquatics, this is very disappointing.

There certainly has been some very promising and progressive work done in the last year. There's been a focus on species at risk (the Banff snail), there's been some very interesting work done on sampling genetics for native west slope cutthroat trout in various areas of the park, there's been a huge effort on water quality monitoring and determining the effects of effluents in the system.

However, it's difficult to get motivated about looking at this stuff and reporting on it, if we haven't been advised. So what we would suggest is that the role of this Forum, as a public consultation discussion process, can serve as a very strong tool for meaningful public relations and education, but this role can only be maintained if there is some means of accountability and followup.

3.7 Ernest WaterChief, Siksika First Nation

I think this is an effective way for First Nations to let our views be known, to let the general public and people around Banff know that we have a very important component in this process. We have 26.5 square miles between Banff and Lake Louise that is Blackfoot Siksika territory. This was signed in a treaty, in order for us to share with all Albertans all this country, all the minerals. We agreed to share all this land, and one of the conditions was the setting aside of a reserve east of Calgary. There were three areas for the three Blackfoot-speaking tribes: Area A given to the Blood Indians (Chief Mountain), which they are able to use as they please to this day, Area B given to the Peigan (the Porcupine Hills) by order-in-council and they are able to use it to this day, and we were given the Castle Mountain region. It wasn't an order-in-council, and therefore the government is saying that it wasn't reserved. However, we never released it, we were never consulted.

Back in the old days, we used to come here and some of our buildings were built from this timber – this is one of the reasons for this land, so that we could build houses and corrals for our people. Back in that day, our people were told by one of the agents that there had been a fire in our area, they saw the smoke in the distance and so they thought that our timber had been burnt. Some of our people still wanted to come here because of a very important part of our culture, different medicines were gathered here and there were different things in this territory that were very important to our people.

In the past, we were not allowed to have legal representation, but after 1960, we were able to get legal representation and we filed in the Exchequer Court of Canada. So all these years, we've had these claims and today we see negotiations, we've had a lot of progress. Years ago, nobody was interested, they knew it was there, but they mostly ignored us. We did four rides, all the way up here from east of Calgary, to let the government know that we were serious about our claim, that we were knowledgeable about it. Since that time, we have seen greater awareness, even among our own people.

We're not asking for a handout. We're just asking for what is rightfully ours. There is a lot of land, a lot of minerals, that Albertans share because of this original agreement. We just want what we believe is ours.

There are a lot of people who have lost hope on the reserve, and I think we have to be more aggressive in asking for what is rightfully ours. We have to give our children hope.

Around 1963 we had 2,000 people on our reserve, and today we have 6,000. We've made a lot of progress, we have oil and gas, and now we're taking advantage of our investments to move forward for our people. There's a young generation out there who are very impatient. This is an election year for Siksika nation, and it's time for us to be more assertive.

I enjoy the opportunity to meet everyone out here, and although I can't discuss the legal ramifications of everything because of protocol, I enjoy the opportunity to share with everyone here that the Siksika have a stake in Alberta and that while other Albertans prosper, we've had very little prosperity coming our way.

3.8 Steve Donelon, Alberta Provincial Parks

As those involved with the management of lands on the eastern slopes, we see the downstream effects of the decisions made in Banff, and of course there are upstream effects as well.

In general terms we feel the Banff Planning forum has been an effective tool in providing both understanding of the Banff Management Plan and some involvement in the implementation process. However as with any process that carries on for an extended period the format can become stale and lack the ability to generate new or creative approaches to addressing issues. With that in mind and with the upcoming management plan review, we think that it is timely to ask this question and consider changes to help revitalize the process.

We feel that there are many positive things about the ten years of this Forum. It has become part of Parks Canada's culture over those ten years.

The planning forum is well publicized with established dates and plenty of notice. Over the past ten years this has permitted participants to plan around the timing and has also created an ongoing expectation on the part of public and stakeholders regarding this opportunity.

The forum has provided an excellent networking opportunity both for the public and stakeholders within Banff National Park and for those in larger regional context. It has been particularly valuable in getting park stakeholders, staff and the public to recognize the impacts of decisions on lands and people outside the park and vice – versa. Ten years ago, we didn't meet with people about land issues the way we do today, and the Forum has been a major part of that change.

We appreciate the opportunities for updates. Staff program / update presentations work so long as they are targeted at specific management issues to be addressed in the management plan and there is opportunity for open dialogue with the public (not just round table members). The learning for Parks Canada has to come through the feed back from individuals and organizations that do not normally participate in planning processes.

The round table format has developed a key group of stakeholders who have become knowledgeable of park planning issues and have developed a level of trust, broken down barriers, and found an ability to speak constructively to the issues.

The round table in conjunction with other planning processes, with many of the same participants, has provided a means to break down communications barriers and develop more effective problem solving sessions.

What does not work:

The round table format and invited break out groups is not conducive to soliciting input from the general public and in particular non resident public. We have to include public from outside the valley in the most meaningful way.

Many of the round table participants are the same individuals and groups that participate on a broad range of park and town planning processes such as LATB, Interdisciplinary Problem solving group and the Montane Advisory. This may lead to a perception of exclusivity with regards to those that have meaningful input into park planning. For many participants this also means revisiting material multiple times that they have helped to develop.

Exclusion of public during break out problem solving sessions. Again this leads to a perception of exclusive access to park managers and input into decisions. There has been some progress in resolving this with the changing program of the forum.

The round table format can provide a platform for specific agendas to be put forward that may not always be related to the management plan.

Suggestions

Allow for greater public participation in all sessions of the forum.

Consider whether the round table is the most effective approach. A completely open public session which encourages feedback from new sources may provide a better learning environment for Parks Canada.

The State of the Park Report could become a basis from which the annual forum is developed by selecting and reporting on specific indicators each year between management plan reviews.

Round table invitees could change each year depending on the issues to be addressed and expertise desired for comment.

The planning forum could be held every second year to provide more time for staff to prepare and to ensure there is adequate change / information on issues to be reported on.

Parks Canada should consider a greater use of technology for disseminating planning information and receiving feedback on management plan issues prior to the forum.

3.9 Grant Canning, Banff Heritage Tourism Corporation

Our mandate comes out of the recommendations from the 1996 Banff-Bow Valley Study. Our mandate is to ensure that our visitors have a quality, authentic experience while they are here, but also that they understand that this is a national park and a world heritage site, and exactly what that means.

To accomplish that requires messaging and communication with our visitors. After reading the state of the park report, I was excited to see that the visitor experience is such a large component. Furthermore, that all of those objectives under the banner of visitor experience are ranked either good or improving.

Banff Heritage Tourism is just one organization tasked with improving the visitor experience within Banff National Park. I look forward to working with the others around this table to ensure that our visitors want to come back.

3.10 Robin Nickel, Calgary Area Outdoor Council (Park Users Sector)

I broke down the first question into two parts. First: Is the Banff Planning Forum a good way to learn about the Management Plan?

Yes it is, because it enables the stakeholders to see and hear about the Plan from Parks Canada's perspectives plus those of the stakeholders themselves.

Second: Is the Banff Planning Forum a good way to get involved in making the Management Plan work?

Yes it is, because stakeholders are in fact offered the chance to receive information, offer input and provide oversight related to the Plan. Through that process, we are more involved.

The second question also has two parts. First: Which aspects of the Forum do work well?

• An itemized agenda of specific Forum topics.
• Presentations that are clear, to the point and based on facts and/or good research.
• Breakaway groups.
• The presence and easy availability of stakeholders, especially Parks Canada personnel.
• An effective facilitator.
• The presence and opportunity for input from the non-forum public.

Second: Which aspects of the Forum do not work well?

• Digressing from specific agenda topics doesn't work well. (It's better to stay on track.)
• Discussion on small details within the entire group setting doesn't work well. (It's better to save the fine points for breakaway groups.)
• Opening remarks that are longer than 180 seconds don't work well.

CAOC considers the Banff Planning Forum to be an extremely important and useful method for involving stakeholders in the issues related to Banff National Park, and hopes that Parks Canada will continue this Forum in the future. CAOC appreciates and thanks Parks Canada for this undertaking.

3.11 Darren Reeder, Banff Lake-Louise Hotel-Motel Association

The Association represents the business interests of 42 member hotel properties and the approximately 5000 individuals they employ. We also represent the business interests of a number of associate members within Banff National Park, and beyond.

To the question we were asked to briefly address - “Is the annual planning forum process an effective way to foster stakeholder understanding of the management plan and involvement in its implementation?” From a purely process-driven, accountability and structured reporting stand-point my sense is, yes.

However, from a business perspective, where our long-range vision and objectives are tested, re-evaluated and re-fined as part of a literally a day-to-day look at our position within the world, industry and our own community, then I would say no. The approach isn't as fluid as many businesses are accustomed to as it pertains to their own internal and external planning and reporting processes.

This underscores the need for long-range business planning. Long-term planning not only provides a certainty about what is desired in 10, 20-years time, but also provides the context for how in-year adjustments to policy and budgets can and should be made to respond to unforeseen circumstances.

Clearly, business has learned many hard lessons in the post-9/11 environment; this has only added to the sense of urgency many tourism-based businesses have about the responsiveness of various levels of government to the current state of the industry.

We are looking for a meaningful point of entry to work with Parks Canada to ensure today's economic realities facing business operators inside the Park are responded to in a timely manner. The LATB process is a good example.

We're looking for ways to engage in a meaningful, cross-sector long-term planning process where social, environmental and economic objectives can be openly discussed, vetted and quickly acted upon. Perhaps this could be accomplished through a long-range planning and advisory council constituted of Parks, environmental, economic and community interests.

I suspect there are more businesses and environmentalists that see eye-to-eye on a number of the long-range issues facing the Park than not; the differences are likely rooted in the ‘how' to accomplish the objective, not in the ‘not' accomplishing the objective.

In closing, the most appealing aspect of the Forum to the BLLHMA is the wealth of knowledge that comes to the table in the spirit of both protecting and promoting Banff National Park.

We believe there is much work to be done in the areas of long-range planning, transportation, economic development, infrastructure renewal, labor attraction and housing options for workers.

We are here to play a constructive role; to bring new ideas to the table; to ensure the federal government understands the significance of our national parks system and what it contributes to our national pride, to the economy in each of the four seasons, and to family memories – those experienced, and those yet to be created.

3.12 Jim Pissot, Defenders of Wildlife, Local & Regional Environmental Groups

By way of introduction, I served for several years as a vice-president of the National Parks Conservation Association in the U.S., and we saw our role there as being the National Parks' strongest supporter when they were pursuing the goal of ecological integrity and of preserving the parks unimpaired for future generations, and as their strongest and most constructive critic when park management strayed from that goal. I try to retain that same vision working here in the Bow Valley, when dealing with the management of our mountain parks.

With respect to the questions at hand – is the forum effective -- I would say “not yet”. A Forum and a planning session ought to be an opportunity to look back, to look forward, and for all to look at the same reality.

I've been influenced perhaps by the news on the royalty review, but I began to look at our role here both as stakeholders, and perhaps as stockholders, in our national park system. As stockholders, we publicly invest in Parks Canada, and we expect some return on our investment. We have reasonable expectations that I think are expressed in the management plan, the Year in Review, and the State of the Parks report, which might be looked at as an annual report to stockholders. We look forward, in that context, to a focus that is very explicit, a focus on goals, and on measures of progress towards those goals, a focus also on accountability (what goals were not met and why, what works and doesn't work, and what's next). If we're falling short of goals, what is going to be different tomorrow, so that those goals are attained in the coming year? And finally, like any stockholder report, a vision for the future: where are we going, what is the consensus among stakeholders, and what leadership will management provide to get there?

Our view of the management planning process is founded firmly on the mandate from the National Parks Act, which is that the maintenance and restoration of ecological integrity shall be a first priority of park management. We think that this goal really ought to be repeated in every goal of the year in review and the state of the park assessment, so that we understand why we are here and why our parks are here. Of course, under that first priority are a variety of programmatic goals, as stated in the management plan, a series of more specific sub-goals or objectives, the actions or products that are pursuant to those goals (and that's well-stated in the documents), but what's not stated is “How do we evaluate our progress and how are we going to adjust and adapt our management in the coming year, so that the shortcomings of the previous year will not be repeated?”

In some sections of the document, there is a good alignment, and we get good answers. In other sections, the answers are not so good, and lingering questions remain. I emphasize this because I think a planning session needs to look at the same reality, and needs to draw us to some common goals and visions. But if we do not see alignment between that ultimate goal of ecological integrity, the array of programmatic goals, objectives and actions, then we're not going to have a common reality, and we're not going to have a common vision for the future.

I look forward to a planning session that offers an honest assessment of progress towards goals. I'm thinking a bit of sitting around the room like a sales team, who are asked for the annual sales report. It's not sufficient to say how many miles the salespeople travelled, how many nights they stayed in hotel rooms, how many doors they knocked on. What the stockholders want to know is: how many widgets did you sell? I find that too much of the Year in Review and the State of the Parks Report is an activity list of how many miles you drove, how many nights you stayed in hotel rooms, how many doors you knocked on. In a lot of organizations, that's called payroll justification, but it's not really a report of progress.

So, we look forward to a more rigorous approach to reporting progress. We look for alignment and consistency in discussion at this forum, and alignment and consistency among the management plan, the Year in Review and the State of the Parks Report. We look for an action plan and next steps that respond to previous outcomes and to changes in conditions, and that formulates a commitment to meet specific goals and objectives. I will hand out a specific review that I did, that looks at two goals in this process (non-native vegetation and grizzly bear management) to give participants some idea of where the strengths are in this process so far, and where some shortcomings are that might be addressed.

I'd like to conclude with two final points. We have an opportunity to reach broader audiences through the media. And we need additional representatives from the City of Calgary – they are the 500-pound gorilla that is not usually at the forum. They are an essential part of the planning process, because they are a larger and larger percentage of our visitors. So I hope that this forum in future does embrace official representation from the City of Calgary, and let's see if the gorilla can bring positive contribution commensurate with their visitor impacts.

3.13 Crosbie Cotton, National Park Ski Area Association

The questions we were asked about the Forum led to me asking myself some questions: Does it lead to acceptable and adequate planning and changes to address critically important issues regarding the park? Does it address issues that ensure the sustainability and vibrancy of the park? And does it lead to those changes – and I would argue that it probably doesn't in many ways, because if you always do things in the same old ways, you don't get any new resources to do anything different, and you always get the same results.

Following up on Jillian's remarks: Banff is at a crossroads, and I believe it is at risk of becoming more and more a regional attraction instead of the world calibre icon for which it was once renowned. I also believe that the economies and businesses are at risk.

The initial Management Plans were written for a different era, where exorbitant visitor projects were used to justify assertive, costly actions. Those visitor figures have never materialized. The plan is out of date.

And while the senior leadership of Parks Canada is publicly stating a strong vision about the need for increased visitors with activities required for a quality visitor experience - a statement echoed by Environment Minister Baird – I am not seeing that vision translated into reality in Banff National Park through this forum.

As we look at the management plan review, we need to consider the sea change in tourism that Jillian talked about. The management plan review offers unmatched opportunity to propel forward proposals that enhance the visitor experience, that will attract more people to the Park, especially destination visitors, and renew the economic health of the local communities and the service providers that are so important to the Park.

The revised Management Plan must push forward new marketing efforts. It must differentiate the shoulder seasons and especially the winter season.

Of deep concern to me is that this forum has never really focused on the economic health of Banff National Park and its communities, and addressed those critical issues

A strong economy leads to creating resources required for environmental leadership.

The recent State of the Community Report produced by Parks Canada in Jasper devotes. significant space to the state of the local economy, the vitality of the local business community, and the major issues that are emerging, such as the availability of adequate, affordable housing.

The hotel sector, the restaurants, service sector and the three ski areas in Banff National Park are facing challenges as high-spending destination visitors are replaced by day-use and single night visitors, who come from a very strong local economy.

To adequately reflect the full State of the Park, a section on the plight of the ski sector should be added. Recent figures show provided by Parks Canada show that during the peak winter month more than 50 per cent of winter visitors come to the park to use the ski resorts. This is based on the recent monthly visitor statistics released by Parks Canada when combined with our skier-day totals December through April. That is more than one in every two visitors come to ski. Some months it is closer to 70 per cent.

Yet:

• Parks Canada contracted four expert National/International consultants to review the competitiveness of the ski sector
• Respected expertise in different fields
• Led by Western Management Consultants of Edmonton
• Arms length research to ski resorts
• Study delivered to Parks Canada in late December 2005 after months of changes
• Results prove tough competitive climate: very challenging future for National Park ski resorts
• Urges priority action to reverse trending, and I quote:
  • “The overall conclusion of the consulting team, based on arm's length review of the information available,….is that the ski areas in the Mountain National Parks are at a competitive disadvantage as compared with comparative areas.
  • “The consulting team finds that, given what we know of ski markets and products, unless concerted and collaborative renewal is taken in the national park ski areas, they will face a long and slow decline against the competition.”
  • “We can say with some certainty that such a decline will seriously and detrimentally impact the three national park business communities and therefore the quality of the experience, summer and winter, of our National Park visitors.
  • “Preventing this outcome should, in the view of the consulting team, be a priority for the ski areas, communities and Parks Canada.”

In black and white the experts concluded the visitor experience will be “seriously and detrimentally” impacted. Where is this in the State of the Park Report or at the Forum?

More recently, on March this year, article 5.4 from the UrbanMetrics " Town of Banff Commercial Capacity Study – The Effects of Commercial Build-Out on the Town of Banff ” states:

“As Aspen has been experiencing, the aging population is impacting the ski/snowboard market, in favour of resort real estate investment (e.g. condominiums, fractional ownership properties, vacation homes, time shares, etc.). The restrictions of commercial development make Banff very vulnerable to these changing market dynamics. Furthermore, its local skiing facilities – Sunshine, Lake Louise and Mount Norquay do not have the same development opportunities as other major ski destinations in western North America, such as Whistler and Vail, which poses a further risk for Banff.

In other words, one of its core markets will likely shrink in the future and it competitiveness may be constrained by its development restrictions.

Again, an expert predicting an unhealthy future.

As I look at the State of the Park Report, I see that the material about ecological integrity initiatives is up to date. Not so for visitors. I believe the material regarding visitor experience, which I believe is in rapid decline compared to what is available elsewhere, is stale and dated. Material produced more than three years ago is questionable at best.

There is a tremendous sea change occurring, and I would recommend as we move forward with this forum that a focus on economic health is very important. The changing tourism market is exceptionally important, as is the full integration of the Town of Banff and Lake Louise in the park management plan. They are not silos, and to leave them out and to say that the mandate of Parks Canada does not include the economic health of Canada's prime park, to me is a significant issue.

There are tremendous new initiatives occurring with Banff Lake Louise Tourism, the Banff Lake Louise Hotel Motel Association, the ski sector, to improve the future, to create transit. The Town of Banff deserves huge praise for investing in Banff Refreshing, attempting to make this destination viable and sustainable in the long term.

As we look to the future of this Forum, and the management plan review, we need to rebalance priorities; we need to look at all components of the economic health of this Park, because, in the end, strong economies sustain the quality of life.

And I believe that's seriously at risk unless we do make changes.

3.14 Dave Poulton, National Environmental sector

As we've gone around the table, I've certainly heard many thoughtful ideas from previous speakers, many of which I agree with and endorse – many, but not all.

By my count this is my 9th Planning Forum, and I have taken part in at least a dozen other planning consultative processes in the Park. I'm sure that makes me one of the usual suspects. I don't say that to brag – or seek pity – but rather to say that I have had a good deal of opportunity to consider the question we are asked to day: whether the planning forum and roundtable are effective ways to foster stakeholder understanding and involvement in management planning and implementation. I would like extend the question to refer to all of the accumulated consultative processes which the park offers. I do that intentionally, as the segregation and isolation of different processes is one of the issues I'd like to raise.

One thing is certain: I have seen things improve. My early experiences with the forum were of shouting matches and media grandstanding. I'm happy to say that those days are far behind us and will stay there.

Last spring I was invited to speak to a session on stakeholder engagement at the conference of SAMPAA, the Science and Management of Protected Areas Association, at Acadia University in Wolfville, Nova Scotia. I was happy to be able to point to Banff for two examples of how things can be done well.

My first example was that of the question which has been asked of roundtable members at the forum for the last 2 years: “What has your sector done to assist in the development and implementation of the BNP management plan?” While many of us strayed from that topic it helped to create a framework where we were encouraged to think about how we could contribute, rather than what we could demand. To ask not what Banff could do for us, but rather what we could do for Banff. I think that helped to create a healthy climate for debate, and helped to focus us on the role of Banff and all our national parks in the fabric of Canada, and served to create that goodwill that we've referred to. We obviously have further to go, but there was encouragement to take the first steps.

My second positive example was that of the Interdisciplinary Problem-Solving Group, or Grizzly Bear Dialogue Group, as it is more commonly known. That process has been a forum for the presentation of quality information, for thoughtful consideration, and a respectful and open exchange of views. I attribute that in part to the attitude which Jillian and Terry have brought to the process, but also to some structural elements as well which can be replicated.

• Skilled independent facilitation, as provided by Felicity Edwards. This has allayed any concern that the agenda may be skewed or manipulated, and assured that all voices are given ample opportunity to be heard.
• Having the superintendents and other park managers at the table as participants, rather than managing the process gives them the opportunity to focus on substance, and allows them to engage more openly with the rest of us, as equal stakeholders in the final results.
• Having a variety of scientific experts at the table, who are free to debate and disagree with one another. This gives the rest of us a clear idea of the true state of science, its confidence levels, and the range of opinions and analysis that exists. It is great for shared learning and for building confidence in the science we are all working with.

I am ambivalent about my following comments about the multiplicity of consultative processes which go on in the park. Clearly, the park should be a place for open and transparent management and a place where stakeholders can be engaged. I would not want my comments to indicate otherwise.

I am concerned, though, about the large number of processes, and their seeming isolation from one another and from management decisions. Let me give two examples:

In about 2001 the Human Use Management process, led by Bill Fisher and Dave Dalman, looked at how much human use is desirable in the various parts of the park, and what management measures could be used to steer things in that desirable direction. The process was prolonged and contentious, but eventually led to some important points of consensus. One aspect of the process was to examine facilities and trails along the Icefields Parkway, and several detailed recommendations were made. We never heard what became of those recommendations. We are now about to embark on another examination of facilities along the Icefields Parkway. When I was pre-interviewed about that process a couple of weeks ago, I asked about how the earlier recommendations were to be incorporated into this process. My contact, I am sure through no fault of his own, was not at that point aware that there had been any prior consultation, much less what its results were.

Another example: We recently heard about a new montane advisory group being established. At the initial meeting, I understand that it was said that it has no relationship to the Inter-Disciplinary Problem Solving Group, which is considering many of the same issues on the same landscape, and even with some of the same participants.

Consultation takes time, energy and resources on the part of organizers and participants. We ought to make sure that those are not drawn on haphazardly, and that all of us, especially park managers, get full value for that investment.

In that regard I have some suggestions:

• A complete review and compilation should be made of past processes and their recommendations, including the discussions at the 10 years of planning fora.
• I suggest that we need an overall framework for consultation based on the park management plan. Park managers should sit down, perhaps with stakeholders, and decide all of those aspects which need to be the subjects of consultation in the coming 1- 3 years. They should look at bundles of subjects as whole, and determine: Can subjects be bundled together to minimize the number of processes needed? What structure of process, and which participants, are best to address which issues? Is there a logical sequence to the subjects? If there are the same participants in different processes, can comments from one process be carried over to another, saving the participant from having to make the same point repeatedly?

These measures would increase confidence that full advantage is being taken of the ideas generated through the investment of time and resources of both stakeholders and park managers.

They would also help to draw the link, which should be close and direct, between consultations, park planning, and management decision-making. The closer that link, the more we are all likely to want to give consultation our best energies.

And that is what Banff National Park deserves.

3.15 Loren Winnick, Province of Alberta

We've been here for a number of years, and I've personally been here for three years. The province has a numbers of levels of ways to work with Parks Canada. As well as the Forum, we have Government of Alberta-Parks Canada ops committee which covers the broader region of mountain parks. As well, we work together on BCEAG and some of the other planning committees as well.

I'd like to look at some of the success stories and also drill down into some of the operational comments.

As a result of work done at the Forum, we're pleased to see that the human use strategy for the LATB has been given a green light, and as an offshoot of that, a couple of years ago, the discussion centred on how to create a Banff Canmore trail for commuters. As a result of that, a committee was struck including the Town of Banff, Town of Canmore, MD of Bighorn, Banff National Park, the province, a few more government departments. We were able to contribute a couple of grants to that. There's good tourism opportunities with this, and benefits to the local users as well. That's a good example of an action that relates to the work of the Forum.

Other areas we work with Parks Canada on include prescribed burns and fire-smarting. We see the benefits, the long term reduction of fuel, reduction of disease, improvement of habitat, all of which will, in the long term, improve tourism's view of the parks. We've also collaborated on issues like smoke and the mountain pine beetle – excellent communication and collaboration on such issues has grown from the basis of the Forum.

Areas that we could improve on: collaboration over the Icefields Parkway, TCH twinning. These are broad issues with a lot of aspects, under the control of the mountain parks.

The provincial film commissioner also raises the difficulty of arranging filming operations in the parks – it's important to us to promote Alberta to the film industry. There might be an opportunity to look at recent standards for filming in Alberta provincial parks, and collaborate to develop something suitable.

Overall, from our point of view, the Parks Planning Forum has been very successful. We'd like to see more public discussion and more public involvement in breakout groups. The majority of operational examples certainly attest to forum success, and we'd like to see the forum continue on.

3.16 Dave Verhulst, Guiding Organizations sector

This is my second year here at the table, and I spent two other years out in the audience as well.

When asked to contemplate the questions about the planning forum's approach and effectiveness, I couldn't help but think of a barometer. A barometer measures air pressure for the purpose of predicting change in weather patterns. Like a barometer, the planning forum provides measurements for Parks staff and for participants in the forum. Parks Canada staff are provided with a measure of stakeholder attitudes and opinions in any given year so they can gauge where others feel there should be a change. Planning forum participants are provided with a rough measure of what the “weather” is like within Parks Canada and what changes might be expected in the recent future. These are both worthy and valuable things and I feel the forum does create a general understanding of some aspects of the management plan. I'm less sure the forum provides involvement in the implementation of the plan. Implementation suggests something practical is accomplished as a result of the forum. With the round table discussions, the conclusions are drawn but what is done with these conclusions? What actions have come out of planning forums in the past?

This forum is focused on possible amendments to the management plan. Is it reasonable to expect that in two short days the results of the planning forum should direct or influence the management plan amendments? When it comes to discussing something as important as amendments to the management plan, I think more than just a crude barometer reading is needed. Before amendments are made, working groups need to be struck and research conducted. The Lands Adjacent to Banff and the Bow Valley Study are two examples of the kinds of initiatives we feel are required to provide accurate direction and amendments to the management plan. As we get closer to 2012 when a new management plan is tabled, I hope there are plans for similar in-depth studies to the Bow Valley Study that will guide management plan changes.

I also concur with the comments already made about involving more Canadians in this process - the national parks are aimed at them.

Since we're here talking about amendments to the plan, an area of the management plan where there is a need for some attention is clarification on the “three pillars,” or “three stranded rope” or “three legged stool” (pick whatever metaphor you like) of the management plan: Ecological Integrity, Visitor Experience and Visitor Education. As I participate in various meetings and at the planning forum, it seems that visitor experience is often being pitted against ecological integrity (or vice versa) as if they are two separate and competing directives. If there was a barometer reading on current presentation and understanding of the ecological integrity and visitor experience directives, it would likely read “potentially stormy.”

To avoid taking steps backward to times of bitter debate between some of the groups at this table, it would be worthwhile for Parks Canada to show how these things fit together and work together. One way to start fitting the two together is to ensure the education directive isn't forgotten. At the present time, little is said about education in park management discussions, but it is through educational experiences that people learn why ecological integrity is important and how they can help Parks Canada ensure that goal is realized. Education may sound a little dull, but it doesn't need to be that way – especially when blended with unique park experiences.

If you're looking for examples of people or organizations that effectively blend Visitor Experience, Education and Ecological Integrity, look at what MPHIA and MPHIA accredited guides do. Many people think guiding is just keeping people safe and entertaining visitors with a series of jokes or witty comments, but for Professional Interpreters, safety is just the beginning. Professional interpretive guides provide active and engaging experiences for park visitors. We're trained to weave information into engaging and fun experiences and stories.

Good interpretive programs help people understand the “why” behind the park. Why is the park important? Why should they care about it? What does it have to do with them and their lives? Through interpretive guides, visitors develop an emotional connection to Banff National Park. This emotional bond helps create advocates and ambassadors for Parks Canada and support for Banff as a place that offers authentic and unique travel experiences.

As we look towards reviewing the management plan, we would like Parks Canada to reaffirm their commitment to high level interpretive training. And when we talk about high level training, we mean at the Professional Interpreter Level. Our other levels are useful, but need to be viewed for what they are: stepping stones to becoming an effective guide. To accomplish the goals of the management plan and to ensure Tourism can make good on its promises to offer visitors outstanding experiences, we need professional interpreters working for every guiding company in the national park.

As Professional Interpretive guides we illustrate, by example, how education and experiences in the park can support, rather than compete with, Parks Canada's goal of maintaining ecological integrity. We hope the interconnectedness of the directives is clarified in the management plan so decisions about future directions and amendments are productive and move us towards realizing the vision of National Parks rather than towards unproductive debate and separation.

3.17 Richard Leavens, Association for Mountain Parks Preservation and Enjoyment

In speaking this morning, I'm third from the last, which is a bit of a disadvantage in that a lot of you have come out with some great ideas. The advantage is that I can change, and respond to some of the great ideas that have been presented.

From this statement I gather that you want my thoughts, on behalf of AMPPE, on whether the exercise offered by the forum is an effective way to:
a) understand the plan as it stands
b) be involved in its implementation

As I look at the Agenda, I see that a morning is spent discussing whether or not the planning forum is relevant and what works and what does not. And then, an afternoon of discussion is devoted to “potential amendments” with an overview of the State of the Park Report and “possible management plan sections for amendment”. The next morning is spent on whether or not the “potential amendments have hit the mark”.

Then I ask myself what are Forum Objectives: it is essential to state clearly what the Planning Forum is attempting to accomplish and this is stated in the objectives as “To set the context for the management plan review”.

Therefore I would offer that the annual planning forum works because it is essentially about process based on stakeholders understanding the plan and being involved in its implementation – this is a necessary process – this format provides for ample discussion and clarification

It seems that, from my standpoint, that the BNP Management Plan is an internal management plan and perhaps does not really allow for substantive change suggested by stakeholders. And that is realistic and acceptable.

On the consideration of aspects that do not work I think it is a more a matter of expectation. I would expect that amendments are taken into consideration and that stakeholder input is heard. I would not expect to make substantive change to the plan rather I would expect that action would be taken from useful feedback.

As an overview, I think that in future years we could look at a different format, to bring into the process of plan understanding and review an aspect of learning. There is a great opportunity for all of us to learn from each other and each others' points of view already, but, if we concentrated on creating more opportunities to learn, then learn and change can go together. That would be the main broad-based change I could suggest to the group, and I think it fits with other items already offered.

3.18 John Snow Jr., Stoney First Nations

This is my second year as a participant at the Round Table, and the first year we came to learn about process and to look at the potential involvement of the Stoney First Nations.

I just want to say that I echo the comments by my Treaty 7 colleague, Ernest WaterChief of the Siksika First Nation. We are treaty rights holders, we are traditional land users, we have land claims in this area, we have many sacred sites that were used for worship, we have burial sites, we have plant harvesting sites, medicines, we have different traditional areas used in different seasons of the year. Our treaty was signed in 1877, at Blackfoot Crossing, and from there our treaty rights flow. We have a treaty relationship with the Crown, and the Crown is our trustee on our treaty rights, and from there flows our history.

We have evolved as First Nations now and we are just becoming part of the involvement with Parks Canada. We have not been involved in the creation, we have not been involved in policy development, we have not been involved in a lot of activities that impact our interests and impact our rights. It's almost a hundred years later that we're coming to view the damage that has been done to our landscape. So I just wanted to provide a brief context to you and to echo Mr. WaterChief's concerns.

Our involvement has been limited or none. This year, it's changed. I was able to attend a national symposium of national parks in Ottawa that addressed traditional land use issues – this is the beginning of an important opportunity for learning. I've also just come from a leadership course in Kananaskis on problem-based learning and I spoke there as well. Part of the background that I gave is that we did not have the right to vote in this country until 1969, as First Nations. We could not pursue claims in court. We could not hire a lawyer. If we went to school, usually residential school, we had to suffer sexual, physical and emotional abuse, and if we graduated, we would lose our Indian status in this country. That's the background.

It wasn't until a lot of these individuals broke away, escaped the residential schools, went for education in the United States and other parts of the world, that they were able to come back as lawyers, professors, and so on, and pursue these claims. And that's what's happening now in this country. There are many wrongs that are going to have to be looked at, and they deal with land.

I am also concerned with the federal government's stand on indigenous rights – they just voted against indigenous rights in the United Nations. I think that as Canadians, we should be concerned that when we don't involve the First Nations in this country, when we curtail and limit their rights and then expect them to participate, I think we have some false hopes.

On the other hand, I'm trying to be hopeful, to learn from the elders and their prophecies concerning this land. The elders have said that one day the younger brothers (the white people) are going to ask the elder brother (the First Nations) about the history of this land and will be curious about how to survive on this planet. This is an indigenous prophecy for native Canadians, for native Americans, also native South Americans.

So I think there's a lot of learning that needs to occur before we can begin discussing a lot of the real issues. Cultural awareness is needed, and we were happy to begin our involvement last year with the superintendent with a pipe ceremony with our elders – we thought that was a proper and a good way to initiate dialogue and discussion. Discussion has to be made with chief and council, who are the elected representatives of our people.

I believe that consultation with the elders is something that has been overlooked, and so we don't utilize the indigenous knowledge. I referred to this in my paper at the leadership conference in Kananaskis, and those of you who are interested can probably get the reference material from Dave Dalman. We had a good case study that we looked at from Australia, dealing with the utilization of indigenous knowledge.

If we don't understand our history, then we are doomed to repeat it.

I think that part of our history has also been part of the proudest moments of the park. The Banff Indian Days was one of the world-renowned events and activities and that has gone by the wayside, but that event was largely due to Stoney and other Treaty 7 tribe involvement and it put Banff on the map.

Today we are involved with committees and other activities with Banff and we have complex issues, complex rights, and so the chief and councils have said that we need a separate process to deal with these issues. We are not simply stakeholders, we are treaty rights holders, we are traditional land holders, and we do have many claims, as my colleague across the way has said, we do have many land claims throughout this region.

We do have one of our elders who has passed away, a very large funeral will be on tomorrow, she was a member of one of the knowledgeable clans of the area. With that, a lot of traditional knowledge has passed away forever. We will be observing that tomorrow, so I will not be able to be here.

3.19 Julie Canning, Banff Lake Louise Tourism

Banff Lake Louise Tourism struggles, as Parks does, with the question of stakeholder involvement. How do we create opportunities for our stakeholders to have input in a meaningful way? This is a question we have to deal with as well.

I'd like to echo earlier comments that this Forum is an important part of the process, not sufficient in and of itself, but certainly an important piece of the strategy. We can celebrate that.

In the past, Parks Canada has been given a lot of feedback about the processes of the Forum, and I think we have to recognize that over the years it has evolved and changed. I think of the fireside chats, of being in Lake Louise last year, of a number of things that have changed - the process certainly has evolved.

But I also think we have to recognize all the other forums that exist outside of this forum, and the roles that they play in setting this up for success, and the amount of stakeholder involvement and engagement that occurs outside of this forum.

BLLT works very collaboratively with Parks – I look into the audience and I see a lot of our Parks Canada partners that are here. I think of the Heritage Tourism Corporation, the Icefields Parkway project that we're now taking into six countries, the in-resort working groups that we have. I think of our media relations area and also the collaborative approach that we have relative to special events in and around the Town. So I think we have a lot to celebrate.

I also have the honour of sitting on the board of the Tourism Industry Association of Canada and recognize the development of Carol Sheedy's new department within Parks Canada – the Visitor Experience secretariat – and that's another area that, as an industry, we're quite supportive of.

But we need to continue to seek creative ways to redefine our public participation processes. Here at the Forum, we are one component of an overall public accountability. I think of our young people and I'm sure they're working right now. I think of the working groups that a lot of us participate in as part of our job, but there are a lot of people who would like to participate where it's not part of their job. How do we engage people in after-hours programming? How to we engage people in web-based programming? How do we seek non-traditional ways of engaging our communities?

The tourism industry is a 24 hour/day, 365 day/year business, and we need to create forums outside of a regular 9 to 5 structure that would allow those people to engage in a meaningful way.

So what works and what doesn't? We're doing our 2008 business planning right now, and we need to test paradigms, be dynamic, re-evaluate things. It makes me think right now that maybe some of our perspectives are dated. We have a process and a program that was valuable in its time, and might be outdated today. In 1997, the world was very different – I'm not sure why we would go through a planning process today that has those 1997 values embedded in it.

But today's solutions aren't as easy as they've been in the past. We need to assume volatility. We have a 103 cent dollar, and it's changed in days. We need to assume volatility in our markets, we need to assume that things will constantly evolve, change and morph. We need to embrace the need to be agile. We don't have things that are fixed any more. To think we have all the answers in a plan is wrong.

Today, from a tourism perspective, it's a scary world. We can't go out anymore and just buy an ad and everyone's just going to show up and life's good – that's not the way it works anymore. And it's overwhelming: Web 2.0, podcasting, social networking, IPods, blogs, meta-tagging. All of those things are the reality of today's world, and I ask: “How are we using those things in our planning processes? How are we embracing them in our management structure?”

The response is probably that we try to get focussed, to do things in a separated way, because it's too much, it's overwhelming. We need to integrate and not put ourselves into silos. We need to embrace each others differences and abilities and ways of doing business, and we need to embrace the fact that as we go forward that we need to find solutions that may look very different than they did yesterday, and may look very different than they will tomorrow.

The lack of community economic indicators is an area of concern for us. They are not the same as visitor experience indicators. Community economic indicators are completely different and have a fundamentally different set of drivers than a visitor experience.

Visitor experience is very important, and refers to the quality of experience that a park user has, versus the quality of experience that a park stakeholder has. Those are very different pieces.

What works? Collaboration, and accepting the fact that we don't have all the answers. What doesn't work? Assuming that we've got it right.

3.20 Response to RT Opening Remarks – Jillian Roulet

I wanted to have an opportunity to talk about what the Round Table and Forum have meant to Parks Canada over the years, and a lot of you have asked about this in your presentations as well.

It did come about directly from the Banff Bow Valley Study, we did have the first Round Table in 1998, and the Bow Valley Study Task Force had used a Round Table format, although it was much more structured and controlled in terms of who was at the table and the nature of discussion. From that experience, it seemed like the Round Table coming together for a concentrated two days was a format that worked and so we chose to institute it on an annual basis.

It has evolved over time, both in terms of who is at the table and in terms of process. Our first few Round Tables, there was an awful lot of presentations, PowerPoints, because we thought we had to get all this information out. Responding to comments, we have tried to pull back and allow more time for discussion.

The annual Planning Forum was also never designed for broad public input – it really was designed for stakeholders. We have done things over the years to engage the public more, but we never had intended for it to be a vehicle for the broader Canadian public and maybe we should – that's the sort of thing that I'm interested in getting some response back on.

A lot of you have talked about the other consultative processes. We have a lot of other processes ongoing, and a lot of you are involved in those: the LATB, Integrated Problem-Solving Group, Lake Louise Area Strategy, Advisory Development Board, etc, and they are as important as the annual planning forum. But this is the one time in the year that we get the full cross-section of our stakeholders at the same table, and we all get to hear from each other in the same sort of way. And it's not issue-based, there's not a huge, burning issue that we're dealing with. To me, this is a really unique opportunity that I would hate to lose. So inputting the questions to participants, it wasn't that Parks Canada insists on change – this is definitely something that we want to continue, but it can certainly be modified and improved and built upon. We made that promise last year at the Forum, that as part of the management plan review we would look at how this is working, and ask if there are other ways to engage our stakeholders.

It is a good barometer for us in looking forward and putting some things on the table – seeing what the interest is and what the reaction is. The Forum helps us design the next year: how we will proceed and how we will involve stakeholders in specific issues. We have a lot of good ideas on the table from all of you, and we'll have to look at these and get back to you on how we'd like to proceed from here.

3.21 Response to RT Opening Remarks – Terry Perkins

I believe Leslie will be summarizing what we've heard this morning, so I'll confine my remarks to a personal point of view.

As you can appreciate, I have several years' experience working at an executive level in Parks Canada, but before I came out here I really had no appreciation for the complexity of the Banff Park Management Plan, a lack of appreciation for the level of public and stockholder involvement. I think back to my first Planning Forum, and I remember that I was really happy that Jillian suggested that I cover a financial review of what was going on in Parks Canada. I was happy to do that, with my background as Chief Financial Officer for Parks in Ottawa. It gave me a chance to begin to network with many people that I would be working with over the years as one of the superintendents in Banff.

I look back now, and realize that I work with many of you, both at the Round Table, and those in the audience. For Parks staff, these are very enriching moments. For example, there's someone in the audience today who has had a range of experience elsewhere, but now she's working on the Icefields Parkway project, she's only been in the mountain parks for a couple of months, and this is a great opportunity for her to sit in the audience and learn about the concerns of our multiple partners in managing Banff National Park.

Parks Canada has a very new but solid initiative to build relationships with First Nations peoples. One of the principles that we try to apply in doing that, as executives, is to deal with First Nations peoples as a separate, one-on-one consultation, because that's what works most effectively. It also gives us an opportunity to learn about and use traditional First Nations ecological knowledge in the implementation of our programs. It's very convenient for us when people like John and Ernest agree to participate in other processes such as this one – it's an example of additional effort on Parks' part, and on their part, to get engaged. We try to engage with First Nations bilaterally, but the fact that they're willing to also participate in this type of process, and listen to the issues and concerns of all the other Round Table members and the public, is of great benefit for Parks Canada and – I think – for the Stoney and Siksika First Nations.

In doing the management plans for Yoho NP and Kootenay NP, we do not enjoy the degree of stakeholder involvement that the Banff National Park processes achieve, but we do take advantage of forums like this, because many of you here are also interested in those parks. So we benefit from the opportunity to build networks, hear your concerns, get input and advice, that pertain to the one big regional ecosystem, one big regional tourism market – we apply this information there as well. This one event, therefore, also makes a difference for two other national parks.

4.0 Open Discussion on Suggestions for Future of the Forum

The following comments about the effectiveness of the Forum and suggestions for the future of the Forum were raised during the general discussion:

Comments/questions related to the review of the park management plan:

• Regional visitors are increasing – a major influence on tourism, therefore a major challenge for management planning
• Focus on the needs of wildlife when planning
• Focus on the needs of new Canadians
• Find a way to reflect different time frames in planning -- contrast between the timelessness of the original environment with the historical depth of the First Nations with the short-term dynamic flux of the socio-economic indicators
• Even ecological issues can be fast-changing, e.g. pine bark beetle
• Look seriously at the winter visitors and winter facilities – especially for cross-country
• There is an existing vision, it came out of the round table of the Bow Valley Study
• Question re role of Bow Valley Study, point that assumptions in study have not proved out, perhaps we should review the Bow Valley Study and see what's still true and what isn't
• Is the management plan a blueprint? Or a changing, living process?
• Need comment on visitor experience and economic viability in the “cornerstones of success”

Comments related to the future of the Forum:

• Forum should focus on overall users rather than visitors
• Forum participants should include mayors of Calgary and Edmonton
• Include cross-country skiers as a sector
• Hold the Forum or a version of the Forum in Calgary
• Use the Calgary-based participants' organizations to help with that
• Create a new vision for the long-term future through this forum, or through another venue
• Find ways to engage the next generation
• Determine what form of decision-making model is involved at this Round Table – is it consensus? Sounding board?
• Strengthen the feedback loop – show what Parks Canada actually does in reaction to the input from the Forum, and other working groups.
• Get our teeth more into the “tough stuff” – the actual decisions that need to be made.
• Talk in practical terms, business planning terms, measure performance against metrics
• Work through a case study together, or through examples from other parts of the world, as a learning experience.
• Present an accounting or an integration of all the recommendations or outcomes or considerations coming out of all the various working groups that are working with the park, possibly on the web. Better integration, better transparency.
• Work together to define “what does success look like?”

5.0 Facilitator's summary – Planning Forum Futures

Facilitator Leslie Taylor summarized common threads in the reactions to the morning's questions, which were:

• please offer your thoughts on whether the annual planning forum and round table approach is an effective way to foster stakeholder understanding of the management plan and involvement in its implementation?, and
• From your perspective, which aspects work and which do not?

…and pointed out that there were many other individual ideas in the presentations.

Consensus around the question of whether the forum is an effective way to foster stakeholder understanding and involvement:

• Yes, with reservations.

Common threads around the question “What works?”

• Collaboration and networking opportunities
• The building of trust and goodwill
• A history of positive evolution of the Forum in response to requests for change
• An opportunity to hear and be heard
• An opportunity to reinforce heritage values
• The convergence of diverse opinions at the table has great value

Common threads around areas that could be improved:

• More agility, a faster reaction time, a more adaptive approach
• Need to report back on what happens as a result of the input
• A clear link from consultation to park planning to management decisions and back to the people who provided the input
• More opportunities for the general public to get involved, coupled with a recognition that this has evolved positively in the first ten years of the Forum
• Accountability focusing on clear measures for success
• Go beyond the usual suspects
• Need a focus on economic vitality

Common threads around ideas for the future:

• Try to provide for an increase in youth participation
• Engage non-resident public, especially Calgary and Calgarians
• Move outside of time constraints, geographic constraints and normal structures, perhaps through the use of technologies such as streaming, blogging, social networking, etc.
• Find opportunities for more targeted, more rubber-hits-the-road sessions
• Find opportunities for a learning focus
• Summarize all recommendations from previous and co-existing fora and committees
• Bundle and coordinate the opportunities for input

6.0 Presentations – Plan Review, State of Park Report

6.1 Introduction to the Management Plan Review – Alex Kolesch

Presentation by Alex Kolesch, Manager, Planning Group, Lake Louise Field Unit (see presentation slides in appendix).

Key points included:

• Management planning cycle: plan, implement, monitor, prepare SOPR, amend or review Management Plan
• Key documents: National Parks Act (direction on what to include, consultation, and review); Guiding Principles and Operational Policies (national level, provide consistency); Corporate Plan (the contract between the Agency and the government, identifies priorities and expectations).
• Roles of park management plan: translates key concepts from above documents to the park level; sets out a vision; documents the path to get there; delivers on the mandate of the Agency; brings together protection, education and experience; incorporates perspectives of all Canadians; provides public accountability
• Roles of the State of the Park Report: an analysis of state of ecological integrity, cultural integrity, visitor experience and public education; uses specific framework for analysis; tracks results of management actions; one tool for informed decision-making; a way to communicate with the public

6.2 State of the Park Report – Mike Murtha

Presentation by Mike Murtha, Planner for Banff National Park and Waterton Lakes National Park (see presentation slides in appendix)

Key points included:

• Process of preparation:
  • triggered by the requirement in legislation;
  • a snapshot of conditions over last 5 years and currently; a self-assessment by Parks Canada;
  • all seven parks in the mountains are being done at the moment;
  • BNP early draft has been sent out to RT members and feedback is welcome;
  • information on how the data are arrived at is available in compendium form;
  • issues will then be carried forward to the management plan
• How ratings are decided: major strategies are reviewed to measure management effectiveness;
  • two general categories (resource protection, connection to place);
  • report is based on indicators and measures;
  • indicators are the tip of the iceberg, there are just 16;
  • a large number of measures support the indicators, a large amount of data supports the measures;
  • look at both condition and trend (improving, stable, declining);
  • template is national – indicators are given to BNP;
  • provides a national perspective compared to other parks
  • each park tailors the measures to its own circumstances
  • several examples were shown
• Next steps in the process
  • This is a draft, it is in evolution
  • Looking forward to getting feedback from the RT
  • Jillian and Alex will be taking draft to Ottawa soon
  • We'll make revisions based on feedback
  • Hope to have complete and distributed by Christmas
  • Intend to use as background for management plan review in 2008

Questions asked/comments made:

Q/C: where are caribou included?
A: in species at risk

Several questions related to species at risk inaudible due to not using microphone.

A: On every indicator, we want to see ourselves in the green, with the trend either stable or improving. This is a way of helping us identify those categories of concern – categories where we need to move up or stabilize or improve a trend.

Q/C: about the indicators themselves and the process used to select them. I'm concerned when I look at these indicators and I wonder what came first: selection of the indicator because it was an appropriate monitoring tool, or looking at the data available, and selecting the indicators based on the data we had at hand. Some of these indicators, to me, wouldn't necessarily support decision-making from the EI perspective, or we may be missing some important ones.

A: selection was not made on the basis of available information, we have items that we have little data for, but we know they are important and that we should build up our data.

Q/C: why are birds separate from harlequin ducks?

A: park experts felt that birds were a good measure of what is happening in the vegetative community (e.g., elk management actions). Harlequin ducks are often used as a surrogate measure for water quality, so they could just as easily have gone into aquatic ecosystems rather than native biodiversity. They felt that it was a good indicator, and we also had a good time series of data.

Q/C: ... inaudible ... does having sufficient information justify using it as an indicator ... water quality ... inaudible

A: undoubtedly, we'll get into a lot of discussions about what indicators, what data.

Q/C: under visitor experience measurements, we've had a joint session (Tourism Bureau, Banff Hotel-Motel, Town of Banff) and we agreed that those are great measurements. We also agreed that we don't have them, with the exception of the 2003 study - we don't have origins of visitors, visitation trends, etc. Kudos on the measures, Kudos to Sheila Luey and team for getting gate counts to us, but we would strongly debate the upward trend, and we feel as a consortium that we don't have that information - so where did you get it?

A: whatever information we've got, you've got. A lot of this is based on 2003. We can repeat that every year because of scale and cost. We do have Parks online survey tool - 2-3000 responses for the questions we ask. We do the best we can, but we can't repeat big studies every year.

Q/C: the chart says that visitor experience is all rosy and everything else is going to heck – that doesn't reflect what I see happening in this park.

A: This is why we're looking for feedback. Visitation continues to steadily increase; we have a very high level of satisfaction from the visitors that we have surveyed, very high level of repeat visitors, and a lot of very happy customers. We have 3.2 million visitors per year, we have 7.8 million visitor days, satisfaction running 80-odd percent, 37% repeat visitors - from our point of view, this is a good news story and we're doing some things right.

Q/C: I think we need some clarification on that. 2003 was our worst year ever, tour bus visitation was down 50% year-over-year, and FIT business was also down exponentially. Benchmarking ourselves to 2003 is not an appropriate benchmark, and using information that's 4 years old is not a good indicator of where we are today. Getting those gate counts in in a timely fashion is something to celebrate, but saying that we're better than we were in our worst year ever doesn't make us green and happy. We need to be benchmarking ourselves to 1999 as our best year ever. That's where we in Banff Lake Louise Tourism think success is. Also, in providing opportunities – that's being evaluated from a perspective that's out of date as well.

A: We have annual counts right up to August of this year, we're seeing a steady increase in visitor use, and we're seeing an increase in group tours as well.

Q/C: inaudible ... visitor experience ... it's better in cross-country ski areas elsewhere – they've all improved relative to us. Should we consider that just because people say they had a great time, doesn't mean that they had a great time compared to what they could have had elsewhere.

6.3 Potential areas for amendments – Alex Kolesch and Mike Murtha

Context for the planning cycle includes SOPR, various advisory groups, new and emerging issues, changing demographics and technology, corporate direction, broader public participation.

The following areas of potential amendments were presented and briefly discussed:

A stronger introduction to the management plan as a whole:

• Provide an improved context for the management plan, a lens through which it is viewed.
• A stronger vision for the mountain parks as a whole

And specific topic areas:

• Icefields Parkway
• Grizzly bear management
• Community plan
• Caribou
• Education
• Indicators
  • Resource Protection
  • Visitor Experience
  • Education
• Relationships with Aboriginal Peoples
• National historic site management plans
• Visitor experience
• Gravel extraction Forest health – mountain pine beetle
• Ski areas

Questions asked, comments made:

Q/C: I expected to hear climate change – has there been any discussion of including that?

A: That definitely fits in with new and emerging issues. I don't know how we'll deal with that, I'm going to be seeking some wisdom from the Ottawa folks as well. We won't be skipping over it. We also need to recognize that it's an overall Environment Canada issue.

Q/C: I'm thinking mostly of what adaptations Parks Canada needs to make.

Q/C: A challenge is going to be looking at the final grade for any category in the SOPR, and realizing that there are a lot of other measures underneath. I would also like to comment on the intertwined rings, three-component graphic – it's misleading. We need to reinforce once again that ecological integrity is the first priority. I think this graphic waters that message down.

A: Making a direct link back to the SOPR from any of these proposed areas for amendment will be challenging – it's important to remember that SOPR is ONE of the inputs into amendments in the management plan.

A: I just want to point out that the three-component image is not an invention of the Mountain Parks; this is Parks Canada Agency's image.

A: Our mandate is what we do, and section 8.2 of the Act tells us that when we implement our mandate, we ought not to impair ecological integrity.

Q/C: The wording is that the first priority is to “maintain or restore”, not to “not impair.” It's positive.

A: you're absolutely right

Q/C: Also, we seem to be having some confusion between two pieces of legislation. The National Parks Act is unambiguous and applies across the national parks system – maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity is the first priority. The Parks Canada Agency Act covers both national parks and national historic sites, and refers to that broader mandate and that three-pronged approach as shown on the three-component graphic. In national parks, the Canada National Parks Act takes primacy. That would be my interpretation.

A: I would see that maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity is the first priority, but doing this (the three-component graphic) is still our mandate. In managing to do this, ecological integrity is the first priority.

Q/C: Generally, the Stoneys have not been involved in the Management Plan, only for the last two years, so we weren't involved in the creation of the management plan, making it more difficult to comment. However, having said that, my most recent experience was attending the national symposium on traditional land use, and there I saw the extremes of what can happen to First Nations within the parks. We have the tragic history in Riding Mountain National Park. The other extreme is Kluane, with its hope for the future and what could happen in terms of the future involvement of First Nations. Somewhere between that is where we find ourselves right now. You may want to check in with the people in Ottawa about the analysis coming out of that symposium.

A: thank you.

Q/C: Comments on indicators and process. Re indicators: regardless of what we want to track, I believe there's a disconnect on visitation. My industry partners around the table have a little red stop sign shape on that one, and that shows the importance of accurate information, applied across a variety of sectors. We can't make informed business plans, things that help our visitors or people employed in the park, if we feel certain things are tracking well when they aren't. We have to follow the trail of statistics and see where it leads – that's the importance of these metrics. So there is a fundamental disconnect -- your read is against your own metrics, in our terms it's questionable. Re process: I need to share a couple of comments I've heard. Communicate the game plan – let us know what's going to happen in the management review process. Show leadership – let others clearly know what they can do to show support. Provide us with clear, concise courses of action. Increase specificity about implementation of plans. Follow up with us – celebrate success more and communicate about challenges. Continue the dialogue that brings results. Consider a mid-year forum and/or periodic meetings. Sample people, create focussed task forces, and engage politicians. Encourage private sector people to be part of the advocacy solution to getting more funds. These all came out of the closing comments of the 2006 Forum. I'm looking for results rather than repetition. We want to be contributors – we can't not be part of that process because our industry is in a state of decline.

6.4 Jillian Roulet's reaction to the general discussion:

In doing the State of the Park Report – it is a new process for us, a new structure, and we are certainly much further ahead as an agency in our thinking on the ecological integrity indicators than we are on the other indicators.

The visitor experience and public education indicators were given to us by national office, and we're probably the first park to actually try to use them. In discussions with staff, we had the opportunity to not show anything in these indicators, which may be where we end up. I had some problems with that, because we did spend a lot of money jointly on the 2003 survey. We're open for discussion – we're not trying to show things better than they are. This was our attempt to use the data that are available to us, and to try to be reliant on data as opposed to perceptions.

Maybe we could stick with the colours, or change the colours, and have more information in the text that clearly says that we jointly feel that the information is old, and that things have changed considerably. Then we set ourselves a target re what we're going to do in the next number of years to update that information.

Indicators are subject to interpretation, so it gets very difficult to do the visitor experience and public education ones. I think the whole thing will evolve nationally, but it can definitely evolve here as well.

I've heard the message that these don't reflect a current state. So the next step is: what do we need to do to make these reflect reality?

6.5 Terry Perkins' reaction to the general discussion

The report is to be used as a communications tool to Parliament and to Canadians about the progress of Parks Canada in meeting its mandate. So, opportunities like this week's planning forum let us test the water to make sure that the report is meaningful to Canadians. Your feedback is valuable on that.

Our design for the report is based on the key elements of our mandate. But if Canadians and parliamentarians are looking for a different version of information, a different presentation, then this forum can help us understand that. You may be telling us that it's fine for us to self-assess in this way but Canadians are also interested in other forums of assessment and we should consider that. That's why we're here, to test what we've got.

Q/C: inaudible due to lack of microphone use.

Q/C: it seems to me that visitor experience, if it's taken at face value and not as a euphemism for something else, is focused on the visitor, partly their numbers, partly their range of activities, partly their subjective judgment about the satisfaction they get from those activities. But it should be focused on the visitor. Those activities and their level of satisfaction may or may not translate into commercial transactions. So the visitor experience may not equate to commercial operator experience, particularly if we're seeing a rising proportion of the visitors from the local/regional market. Those Calgarians are most likely to come, have a very good day in the park, have a high level of satisfaction, and not spend a penny. I can understand why the commercial sector within the park may have a lot of concerns about the way that things are evolving in the park, but that is not the equivalent of visitor experience. Visitor experience may very well be genuinely positive – that doesn't necessarily mean that things are good for the commercial sector. We're more likely to solve whatever we identify as the problem with these indicators if we're very clear about what we're identifying.

[ Table of Contents | Next ]