Parks Canada
Symbol of the Government of Canada

Common menu bar links

Internal Audit and Evaluation Documents

Multi-Year Evaluation Plan 2013-2014 to 2017-2018

August, 2013

Office of Internal Audit and Evaluation Parks Canada

Recommended for Approval by Parks Canada Executive Management Committee: August 13, 2013
Date approved by CEO: September 30, 2013

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the Chief Executive Officer of Parks Canada, 2013

Catalogue No.: Paper: R61-21/4-2013E; PDF: R61-21/4-2013E-PDF

I submit to the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, the evaluation plan that I approved for the Parks Canada Agency for fiscal years 2013-2014, as required by the Policy on Evaluation.

As per section 6.1.7 and 6.1.8 of the policy, I confirm that this five-year departmental evaluation plan:

  1. Aligns with and supports the departmental Management, Resources and Results Structure;
  2. Has been designed to help support the requirements of the Expenditure Management System, including strategic reviews; and,
  3. Includes all ongoing programs of grants and contributions administered by the department, as required by section 42.1 of the Financial Administration Act.

I will ensure that this plan is updated annually and will provide information about implementation of the Agency's evaluation plan to the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, as required.


Original Signed by
Alan Latourelle
Chief Executive Officer
Parks Canada Agency


Sept 30th, 2013

Table of Contents

Executive Summary


Parks Canada Agency

Evaluation Function

Evaluation Planning Methodology and Considerations

Planned Projects For Next Five Years

Projects for 2013-2014

Appendix A. Priority Assessment Dimensions and Scales

Appendix B. Corporate Risk Profile 2013-2014

Appendix C. Past Coverage of the Evaluation Universe (April 2007 to March 2013)

Appendix D. Agency RMAF Evaluation Commitments (2013/14-2014/2015)

Executive Summary

The Parks Canada 2013-2014 Multi-Year Evaluation Plan outlines the mandate, organizational structure and resources for evaluation in the Agency, the considerations employed in developing the Plan and details of individual evaluation projects for FY 2013-2014, together with the associated resource allocation.

The Office of Internal Audit and Evaluation (OIAE) adheres to the government's policy, directive and standards for evaluation. The evaluation function consists of a Chief Evaluation Executive (CEE) and four evaluator positions.

The evaluation universe (i.e., all the individual "evaluable programs") consists of 21 entities based on a modified version of the Agency's Program Alignment Architecture (PAA). Evaluable entities are described and prioritized based on eight ratings scales (e.g., materiality, completeness of performance framework, reach of entity, degree of control over outcomes). Under policy, it is expected that each of the entities will be evaluated every five years, with evaluation priority ratings serving to help schedule the timing and the scope and scale of the evaluations.

For this planning cycle, we updated evaluation priority ratings and consulted with senior management on potential evaluation activities but it was not possible to conduct a comprehensive review of all entities to assist in planning. In this fiscal year, the function plans to update the evaluation universe for future planning. In addition to other factors, this update will consider the nature and scope of changes impacting on the Agency's operations as a result of Budget 2012 and other fiscal restraint measures.

For 2013-2014, the function will 1) complete two evaluations and support two interdepartmental evaluations carried over from the 2012-2013 fiscal year and 2) undertake three new evaluations and participate in one new interdepartmental evaluation.

Four or five evaluations are planned each year for the years 2014-2015 through 2017-2018. Completion of this work will result in 100% coverage of evaluable entities for the April 2013 to March 2018 five year evaluation cycle. Scheduling of projects in later years should be viewed as tentative pending the update of the evaluation universe and priority ratings over the next several months.


The 2013-14 Parks Canada Evaluation Plan, consistent with the TB Evaluation Policy, outlines the mandate, organizational structure and resources for evaluation at Parks Canada, the strategy and process employed in developing the Plan, a project schedule for the five-year period from April 2013 to March 2018, and details of individual evaluation activities for the FY 2013-2014, together with the associated resource allocation.

Parks Canada Agency

Parks Canada was established as a separate departmental corporation in 1998. The Agency's mandate is to:

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

Responsibility for the Parks Canada Agency rests with the Minister of the Environment. The Parks Canada Chief Executive Officer (CEO) reports directly to the Minister.

Evaluation Function

Applicable Policies and Professional Standards

The evaluation function at Parks Canada adheres to the TB Policy on Evaluation, and associated directives, standards and guidelines of the Government of Canada. In 2007-2008, a charter for the evaluation function was approved consistent with the then draft Evaluation Policy, directives and standards.

Mandate and Services Offered

The mandate of the function is:

To contribute to the achievement of Parks Canada's mandate by providing the CEO with evidence-based, credible, neutral and timely information on the ongoing relevance, results, and value of policies and programs, alternative ways of achieving expected results, and program design improvements.

Services include:

  1. Evaluation plans completed in advance of an evaluation to briefly describe an entity, its logic, inputs, outputs, reach and results and identiFY evaluation questions, methods and costs);
  2. Evaluations of programs, policies and functions (i.e., treating the core issue of relevance and performance); and
  3. Consulting projects and advice, as required, on performance measures, targets and information systems.

Follow-up on Management Responses

The evaluation cycle includes a systematic follow-up on the management responses, at six months intervals, after the final approval of the reports by the CEO. Responses are tabled at the next available evaluation committee meeting. The processes continue for five-years or until all planned actions are complete.


The Agency's CEO chairs the Evaluation Committee, which is composed of seven senior managers (i.e., Vice-Presidents, Chief Financial Officer, and Chief Administrative Officer). The committee approved a revised terms of reference on February 9, 2012.

The Evaluation Committee is responsible for reviewing and providing advice or recommendations to the CEO on:

  1. Evaluation Function and Products: including the Agency's Evaluation Charter; the rolling Five-Year Evaluation Plan; the adequacy and neutrality of resources allocated to the evaluation function; the performance of the function; and key elements of an evaluation product lifecycle, such as terms of reference, scoping documents, evaluation reports, and management responses and action plans including following-up to ensure action plans are implemented.
  2. Performance Management Framework: the adequacy of resources allocated to performance measurement in support of evaluation activities, and recommend to the CEO changes or improvements to the framework and an adequate level of resources for these activities.

Organizational Structure and Resources

Organizational Structure and Resources

The organization chart for the function is shown at the right. There are currently four evaluator positions for staff in the function.[1] Staff in all positions will be absent on either unpaid or parental leave for part of the year and one staff member will be absent on language training for part of the year. A process is underway to replace two ES-05 staff with term employees for the duration of their absence and to find a permanent replacement for the ES-06 position.

The timing of staffing is uncertain. It is estimated that 2.6 FTEs will be available for evaluation work during the year.

Budget for evaluation in the Agency includes:

  1. Part of the salary and O&M costs for the office of CAEE; typically about $34K per year.
  2. Costs of the evaluation function (i.e., the salary and expenditures for the four evaluator positions).

The available budget for the evaluation function along with actual expenditures in 2012-2013 and forecasted expenditures in 2013-2014 are shown in the table below.

Expenditures Forecasted Expenditures
as % of
Available Budget
2012-2013 2013-2014 
Actual Forecast
Salaries 385,100 271,333 272,800 71%
Project Costs 152,500 88,790 35,100 33%
Non Project O&M   9,392 14,700  
  537,600  369,515  322,600  60% 

The time-budget for the function is estimated to be 4,053 hours (i.e., the available work time for 2.6 FTEs minus vacation, sick leave and training time). For 2013-2014 approximately 93% of the time is allocated to evaluation work, and 7% for administration.[2] Details of expenditure and time allocation for specific projects are shown below.

Evaluation Planning Methodology and Considerations

Evaluation planning is based on a listing of evaluable entities (i.e., the programs or activities that may be subject to evaluation) called the evaluation universe. In the Agency the evaluation universe consists of 21 entities based on the Agency's Program Alignment Architecture (PAA) with some adjustments and modifications to amalgamate sub-activities where it makes sense and to add a few programs that are not part of the PAA structure.[3] Each entity is described, documented and prioritized to determine the sequence of evaluation activities over a five year period. Priority ratings for evaluation are based on ratings of the entity on eight dimensions (i.e., with a three point scale for each) adapted from the TBS Guide to Evaluation Planning (see Appendices C, D, E, and F for more details). Scheduling of entities for evaluation also takes account of external commitments to conduct evaluations[4], past or planned work of other assurance providers, senior management priorities, and evaluation capacity.

Under the TB Policy on Evaluation the Agency is required to evaluate 100% of its direct program spending over a five year policy starting with the April 2013 to March 2017 cycle.[5] An additional requirement in the FAA is to evaluate all grant and contribution (G&C) programs every five year staring from December 2006.

For the five year period prior to April 2013, evaluations of were completed for 7 of the 21 entities in the evaluation universe (33% coverage) representing approximately 45% of all Agency spending.

Evaluations of the Agency's two grants and contribution programs were completed in 2011-2012 (i.e., the General Class Contribution Program) and 2012-2013 (i.e., the National Historic Sites of Canada Cost-Sharing Program). Both are scheduled for re-evaluation in the five year cycle starting April 2013.

Planned Projects For Next Five Years

Preliminary evaluation planning was undertaken in March and April 2013 involving a review of and some minor adjustments to the priority ratings of the entities.[6] Individual interviews (n=9) were conducted with members of Executive Management Committee in May 2013 to confirm the continued relevance, appropriateness and timing of the already proposed evaluation schedule as laid out in the 2012-2013 Evaluation Plan. This resulted in various adjustments reflected in the five year plan outlined below.

The schedule of evaluation engagements for years 2014-2015 through 2017-2018 should be viewed as tentative and is likely to change as the work to update the universe and priority ratings over the next several months is completed.

Projects for 2013-2014

In 2013-2014 the function will:

  1. Complete two evaluations and support two interdepartmental evaluations carried over from the 2012-2013 fiscal year
  2. Undertake three new evaluations and participate in one new interdepartmental evaluation.

Proposed timing and costs of the projects are outlined below.

In addition, the function will complete a systematic review and updating of its evaluation universe and priority ratings to reflect the significant changes in the Agency in the last year due to fiscal constraints. A process for undertaking a neutral assessment of the evaluation function consistent with the TB Policy on Evaluation requirements will also be identified.

Five-Year Evaluation Plan
Universe Elements Priority Ratings (0 to 32) 2013-
Past Coverage
Program Elements Lacking Recent Coverage
1 Visitor Safety 18     Evaluation      
2 Interpretation 16   Evaluation        
3 Law Enforcement 14 Evaluation        
4 Outreach Education And External Communications 14     Evaluation      
5 Stakeholder And Partner Engagement 14     Evaluation      
6 Townsite Management 12   Evaluation        
7 National Marine Conservations Areas Sustainability 12       Evaluation    
8 National Marine Conservation Area Establishment 8          
9 National Historic Sites Conservation 10   Evaluation        
10 Other Heritage Places Conservation 8 Evaluation        
11 Other Heritage Places Designations 6        
12 National Historic Sites Designation (Persons, Places, Events) 6 Evaluation          
Program Elements with Recent Coverage (* indicates carry-over projects from 2012-2013)
13 National Park Establishment and Expansion 8 *Evaluation         n/a
14 National Parks Conservation 16 *Evaluation         n/a
15 Through Highways Management 22   Evaluation (TCH)[7]      Evaluation 2010-2011
16 General Class Contributions Program 8       Evaluation   2010-2011
17 Through Waterways Management 24         Evaluation 2011-2012
18 Visitor Activities and Services 20       Evaluation   2011-2012
19 Market Research and Promotion 12        
20 Species at Risk 16       Evaluation   2012-2013
21 National Historic Sites Cost-Sharing 6         Evaluation 2012-2013
Cumulative Program Coverage 3/21  10/21  13/21  18/21  21/21   

Planned Projects 2013-2014
Topic Type Description Planned or Actual Dates Resources Required
tion of the field-
tion of
Date of approval by Commit-
Approx hours O&M
Carried Over From 2012-2013
National Park Establish-
ment and Expansion
Evaluation An evaluation of the relevance and performance of this sub-activity. Y January 2011 April 2012 July 2013 October 2013 130 1.5K
National Parks Conservation Evaluation An evaluation of the relevance and performance of the sub-activity. Y May 2011 June 2012 August 2013 October 2013 300 1.5K
New in 2013-14
Law Enforcement Evaluation An evaluation of the relevance and performance of the program. N January 2014 June 2014 September 2014 December 2014 1,700 20K
National Historic Site Designations Evaluation An evaluation of the relevance and performance of the sub-activity. N September 2013 January 2014 April 2014 June 2014 750 10K
Other Heritage Place Conservation and Designations Evaluation An evaluation of the relevance and performance of the sub-activity. N September 2013 January 2014 April 2014 June 2014 750 10K
Contributions to Interdepartmental Evaluations for 2013-14*
Advancing Conservation Interests in the NWT** Evaluation
Parks received funding for feasibility study of East Arm of Great Slave Lake and development and operation of Sahoyue and Ehdacho NHS. Y March 2011 December 2012 April 2013 June 2013 50  
Federal Contami-
nated Sites**
Evaluation involving the 16 organizations involved in the Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan. Y March 2012 October 2012 March 2013 June 2013 35  
Office of the Federal Interlocutor and the Powley Initiative Evaluation
Evaluation involving AANDC, EC and RCMP. PCA received funding related to the management of Metis and Aboriginal Rights. N February 2013+ June 2013 August 2013 September 2013 35  
Total 3,750 53K
* Parks Canada participates in these horizontal evaluations, generally contributing to joint evaluation reports. Lead for the evaluations are as indicated in brackets under 'Type'. Reporting from these will be tabled at Evaluation Committee for information or approval as appropriate.

** Carried over from 2012-13.

+ Work on this evaluation began in 2012-13, but AANDC did not inform Parks Canada of the Agency's participation in the evaluation until 2013-14. It is thus considered new work for 2013-14.

Note: Approximate hours reflect required effort. Projects that extend beyond a fiscal year will require more effort than shown in the table. Staff or consultants may perform the work. O&M required includes costs of professional services and/or costs of staff travel.

Appendix A. Priority Assessment Dimensions and Scales

Dimension Score
4 2 0
TB Commitments Required in the next 12 to 18 months  Required but not in the next 18 months  None required 
Materiality >10% (approximately 60+ million)  5% to 10% (approximately 31 to 60 million)  <5% (approximately 30 million) 
Links to Corporate Risk Profile Links primarily to high priority corporate risks  Links to primarily lower priority corporate risks  No links to corporate risks 
Activities linked to the 2013-14 key corporate risks: competitive position, natural disasters, environmental forces, asset and workforce management are rated four. Activities related to other corporate risks are rated a moderate and activities not related to the risk profile are rated one.
Completeness of Performance Framework None or few elements of the framework in place  Partially complete  Complete 
A complete framework consists of defined measurable goals and objectives, baseline measures of performance, quantifiable targets with clear time frames for accomplishment of goals and systems to measure and report on progress and goal attainment, and evidence of monitoring and reporting.
Extensiveness of Program Reach Extensive reach to communities, stakeholders, NGOs, Aboriginal peoples, and the public.  Moderate and/or regional-level reach to communities, stakeholders, NGOs, Aboriginal peoples, and the public.  Limited and/or localized reach to communities, stakeholders, NGOs, Aboriginal peoples, and the public. 
High intended direct reach is typified by activities related to building awareness and understanding the Agency and its mandate and promotion and marketing Parks Canada sites as well as the visitor experience program which are intended to reach millions of Canadians and international visitors. Low reach is typified by sub-programs in the Other Heritage Places Establishment Sub-Activity such as Grave Sites of Prime Ministers which is effectively targeted at a few families of former prime ministers whose grave sites are not yet formally commemorated. When the target reach of a program are organizations, or provinces, as in park establishment for example, we count reach as the number of groups targeted and not the size of the constituencies represented by these groups. Most program activities have ultimate beneficiaries i.e., Canadians as a whole, who are not counted as the program or sub-activity reach.
Degree of Direct Control Over Outcomes Low Direct Control  Moderate Direct Control  High Direct Control 
Low control over outcomes is exemplified by the national park and national marine conservation areas establishment and expansion sub-activities, which require extensive consultation and negotiations over many years with dozens of different stakeholders, who differ in their capacities and interests, and have the capability to block a particular establishment process. More control is available over a contribution program where the Agency, with TB agreement, has set the terms and conditions for receiving funding and evaluates and recommends who will be funded. An intermediate example might be conservation in national parks and NMCAs where the Agency may have a relatively high degree of control over what occurs within the boundaries of the park but is also interested in influencing regional land use practices that impact on the park's ecological integrity.
Public's Importance of Public Health and Safety Considerations in Program Delivery High Level of Consideration of health and safety issues in delivery of a sub-activity.

Moderate Level of Consideration of health and safety issues in delivery of a sub-activity.  Low Level of Consideration of health and safety issues in delivery of a sub-activity. 
Many activities involving visitors require consideration of health and safety issues as a fundamental part of the program delivery. Examples include the potential for human wildlife conflicts in national parks, possibilities of contamination when providing potable water, the potential of accidents on highways managed by the Agency, and the potential for accident or injury when conducting law enforcement or search and rescue activities. We do not assess the nature or quality of management measures to mitigate health and safety issues involved in sub-activity delivery only whether and the extent to which these considerations have been inherent in delivery of the activity.
Public Interest and Sensitivity High  Moderate  Low 
Activities which have received recent public or political attention are rated higher (i.e., the lead up to the decision to arm park wardens and the new law enforcement program had extensive media coverage but this has largely abated since the new program began operating). Introduction of new legislation such as the Heritage Lighthouse Act, creates temporary political interest in a particular activity (the Act would protect heritage lighthouses in Canada and is considered part of the Other Heritage Places Designation sub-activity). Some consideration is also given to potential for public or political interest. Many of the health and safety concerns reviewed above have high potential interest should they occur (e.g., the failure of a dam or a potable water system resulting in a significant number of injuries or deaths).

Appendix B. Corporate Risk Profile 2013-2014

Risk Category and
Risk Statement Risk Owner
Aboriginal Support Support from Aboriginal Peoples may diminish and become insufficient to advance Parks Canada's programs. Director, Aboriginal Affairs Secretariat
Inter-governmental Collaboration Cooperation and support from other federal departments, provinces, territories, and municipalities, may be insufficient to advance Parks Canada's programs. VP, Protected Area Establishment and Conservation

VP, Heritage Conservation and Commemoration
Partnering Instruments Existing partnering authorities and related instruments may limit Parks Canada's ability to fully leverage partnering opportunities, resulting in its inability to extend its reach and to grow the base of support for Parks Canada's administered places. VP, External Relations and Visitor Experience
Public Support Support from local communities, stakeholders, NGOs, and the Canadian public may not exist or be insufficient to advance Parks Canada's programs. VP, External Relations and Visitor Experience
Competitive Position Parks Canada's programs, service and experience offer may be less attractive or of less interest to Canadians, compared to alternative leisure activities and interests, as a result of the growing diversity, urbanization and changing tastes of the Canadian population and of resource erosion due to inflation.. VP, External Relations and Visitor Experience
Development Pressures Development pressures may limit opportunities for establishment of National Parks and National Marine Conservation Areas, as well as impact commemorative integrity at Parks Canada's National Historic Sites in urban areas. VP, Protected Area Establishment and Conservation

VP, Heritage Conservation and Commemoration
Natural Disasters Natural disasters may impair or destroy critical infrastructure and/or assets of national historic significance, or lead to significant unforeseen expenses and potentially, serious injury or loss of life and the permanent loss of assets of national historic significance. Chief Administrative Officer, VP Eastern Canada, VP Western and Northern Canada
Environmental Forces The Agency's ability to maintain or improve overall EI in NPs and meet legal requirements related to species at risk may be hindered by environmental forces, such as biodiversity loss, exotic/invasive species, as well as climate change, and shoreline erosion, which also pose a risk to maintaining commemorative integrity at NHSs. VP, Protected Area Establishment and Conservation

VP, Heritage Conservation and Commemoration
Parks Canada's Business Operations
Asset Management Aging infrastructure, inadequate level of recapitalization and maintenance, and inflationary impacts, particularly for high risk contemporary assets and critical built heritage assets, could result in compromised public safety, loss of irreplaceable heritage, and damage to the Agency's reputation. Chief Administrative Officer
Information Management Failure to identiFY, capture, manage, share and report pertinent data and information and knowledge may hinder the ability to effectively manage all program areas and meet legal requirements. Chief Administrative Officer
Workforce Management The Agency's ability to sustain a sufficient and representative workforce with the appropriate competencies within the current fiscal and demographic realities could lead to challenges in delivery of all programs and support functions. Chief Human Resources Officer
Source: Parks Canada Agency Corporate Risk Profile 2013-14

Appendix C. Past Coverage of the Evaluation Universe (April 2007 to March 2013)

Program Activities and Sub-Activities Parks Canada Evaluations

Work of External
Assurance Providers
Heritage Places Establishment
National Park Establishment and Expansion Evaluation of Parks Canada's National Parks Establishment and Expansion (TBD - 2013)  
National Historic Sites Designation (Persons, Places, Events)    
National Marine Conservation Area Establishment   CESD Chapter --- Marine Protected Areas (2012)
Other Heritage Places Designations    
Heritage Resources Conservation
National Parks Conservation Evaluation of Parks Canada's National Parks Conservation (TBD - 2013) CESD Chapter - National Parks Conservation (ongoing; started 2012)

CESD Chapter 1 - Applying the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (2009)

CESD Chapter - Environmental Assessment (ongoing; started 2013)
Species at Risk Evaluation of the Habitat Stewardship Component of the Species at Risk Program (2008-2009)*

Interdepartmental Evaluation of the Programs and Activities in Support of the Species at Risk Act (August 2012)*
CESD Chapter 5 Ecosystems Protection of Species at Risk - March 2008
National Historic Sites Conservation    
National Marine Conservation Areas Sustainability Evaluation of Parks Canada's Phase One of Oceans Action Plan -June 2007

Interdepartmental Evaluation of the Health of the Oceans (HOTO) Initiate (2012).*
CESD Chapter --- Marine Protected Areas (2012)
Other Heritage Places Conservation    
National Historic Sites Cost-Sharing Evaluation of Issues Related to the National Historic Sites of Canada Cost-Sharing Program -August 2008

Evaluation of Parks Canada's National Historic Site Cost-Sharing Program (November 2012)
Public Appreciation and Understanding
Public Outreach and External Communication    
Stakeholder and Partner Engagement    
Visitor Experience
Marketing and Promotion Evaluation of Visitor Service Offer - January 2012  
Interpretation (National Parks, National Historic Sites, National Marine Conservation Areas)    
Visitor Services Evaluation of Visitor Service Offer - January 2012  
Visitor Safety    
Town-Site and Throughway Infrastructure
Townsite Management   CESD Chapter 1 - Safety of Drinking Water - March 2009
Through Highways Management Evaluation of Through Highway Management - November 2010  
Through Waterways Management Evaluation of Through Waterway Management - March 2012  
Evaluations contributing to coverage of multiple program activities Evaluation of the Parks Canada Asset Management Program - July 2009

Evaluation of Parks Canada's General Class Contribution Program - November 2010
* indicates an interdepartmental evaluation

Appendix D. Agency RMAF Evaluation Commitments (2013/14-2014/2015)

  Horizontal Evaluations Parks Canada
2013-2014 Evaluation of the Establishing Federal Protected Areas in the NWT*: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Environment Canada and Parks Canada are partners working together to advance the Northwest Territories Protected Areas Strategy. Parks Canada received $8.05M between April 2008 and March 2013 (i.e., roughly a third of investment) to assist in establishing a national park in the East Arm of Great Slave Lake, and to help develop and make operational of the Sahoyue and Ehdacho National Historic Site of Canada. A summative evaluation of the initiative, led by AANDC, is currently underway and is planned for completion in 2013-14.

Evaluation of Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan: This evaluation is currently underway, led by EC. The three program components identified for this evaluation include the FCSAP Secretariat, expert support departments and all custodians who have received FCSAP funding. A final report is planned for March 2013.

Evaluation of the Federal Interlocutor Program and Powley Initiative: This evaluation is currently underway, led by AANDC. The programs in question are focused on Metis and non-status Indian relations. Parks Canada received some funding under the Powley Initiative to review the Wood Buffalo National Park Game Regulations, implement frameworks to manage cooperation between Treaty 8 First Nations and Métis, and develop policies and strategies concerning Métis Aboriginal rights assertions in national parks and national historic sites. A final report is planned for September 2013.
Evaluation of the Law Enforcement Program: The program, involving up to 100 armed law enforcement officers responsible for enforcement of laws and regulations in the Agency's protected heritage places (excluding criminal code enforcement) was funded and developed in 2008-09 with on the ground activities commencing in 2009-10. The program will have start-up costs of $8.5M in 2008-09 and ongoing costs of $2.3M per year thereafter (i.e., less than one percent of the Agency's annual spending). A summative evaluation is planned in 2013-2014.
2014-2015 Evaluation of Climate Change Adaptation: This evaluation, to be led by EC, will include nine departments that have received funding for climate change adaptation. Parks Canada is expected to have a small role in the evaluation. Planning for this work will begin at the end of 2014-2015. Evaluation of the Twinning of the Trans-Canada Highway in Banff National Park: The recent initiative (i.e., 2004-05 on) involves twining 32 kilometres of the TCH at a total cost of $317M over 10 years.

[1] One ES-03 entry level evaluation position was eliminated in August 2012 as a result of fiscal restraint in the Agency.

[2] Administration includes planning, work on internal systems, support to the evaluation committee, staffing and other HR activities, follow-up on previous recommendations and consulting projects and advice.

[3] These are the Law Enforcement Program and the General Class Contribution Program.

[4] There are commitments in TB submissions to conduct evaluations as a condition of receiving funding and obligations to evaluate grant and contribution programs under the FAA.

[5] The Policy was implemented in 2009 with a phase in period for complete coverage.

[6] Given the fact that the fundamentals of the Agency's programs (i.e., materiality, direct reach, control over outcomes, health and safety implications) do not change significantly from year to year, priority ratings of the elements of the universe tend to be similar from year to year. Dimensions where some change is evident include a commitment to conduct an evaluation (i.e., due dates are nearer increasing the priority of some items) and links to the corporate risk profile (i.e., the extent to which the Agency's risk profile has changed). This year's update also considers the impact of Budget 2012 on the Agency (i.e., changes to organizational structures and reductions in positions, programs and seasons of operation).

[7] Cumulative program coverage does not include evaluation of TCH as this represents a small sub-set of total program for through highways management.