Parks Canada
Symbol of the Government of Canada

Common menu bar links

Internal Audit and Evaluation Documents

Multi-Year Evaluation Plan 2015-2016 to 2019-2020

Office of Internal Audit and Evaluation Parks Canada

Recommended for Approval by Parks Canada Executive Management Committee: March 18, 2015
Date approved by CEO: April 20, 2015

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

Table of Contents

Deputy Head Confirmation

I approve the departmental evaluation plan (DEP) of Parks Canada for the fiscal years 2015-2016 to 2019-2020, which I submit to the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat as required by the Policy on Evaluation.

As per Sections 6.1.8 of the policy, I confirm that the following evaluation coverage requirements are met and reflected in this five-year DEP:

  • all ongoing direct program spending is evaluated every five years;
  • all ongoing programs of grants and contributions are evaluated every five years, as required by section 42.1 of the Financial Administration Act;
  • the administrative aspect of major statutory spending is evaluated every five years;
  • programs that are set to terminate automatically over a specified period of time, if requested by the Secretary of the Treasury Board following consultation with the affected deputy head;
  • specific evaluations, if requested by the Secretary of the Treasury Board following consultation with the affected deputy head.

As per section 6.1.7, I confirm that this five year DEP:

  • aligns with and supports the departmental Management, Resources and Results Structure; and
  • supports the requirements of the Expenditure Management System, including spending reviews.

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


Alan Latourelle
Chief Executive Officer
Parks Canada Agency

__April 20, 2015_____

Executive Summary

The Parks Canada 2015-2016 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 2015-2016, 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 five evaluator positions.

The evaluation universe (i.e., all the individual “evaluable programs”) consists of 20 entities comprised primarily of sub-programs or combinations of sub-programs within the Agency’s Program Alignment Architecture (PAA). Evaluable entities are described and prioritized based on eight ratings scales (e.g., materiality, known problems impacting program performance, program complexity, reach of entity). 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.

In 2014-2015, the universe was restructured consistent with the Agency’s new PAA. For this planning cycle, evaluation priority ratings were adjusted based on consultations with senior management and an internal priority assessment exercise. For 2015-2016, the function will complete five evaluations carried over from 2014-2015, provide on-going support to one interdepartmental evaluation and launch five new evaluations.


The 2015-16 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 2015 to March 2020, and details of individual evaluation activities for the FY 2015-2016, 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. The charter for the evaluation function was last updated in 2013-2014.

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:

  • Evaluation plans completed in advance of an evaluation to briefly describe an entity, its logic (inputs, outputs, reach and results) and to identify evaluation questions, methods and costs;
  • Evaluations of programs, policies and functions (i.e., treating the core issue of relevance and performance); and
  • 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.


Evaluation Committee is now the Executive Management Committee in the Agency which is chaired by the CEO. Terms of reference for the committee were updated in 2013-2014.

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

  • 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.
  • 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

Graph of Organizational Structure and Resources

[long description]

The organizational chart for the function is shown at the right. The function currently consists of five funded evaluator positions. This is an increase of one budgeted FTE (ES-05) from 2014-2015 as a result of the Agency receiving significant new funding for infrastructure investment as announced by the Prime Minister on November 24, 2014.

The effective staff complement for 2015-2016 is estimated to be 4.75 FTEs due to one employee’s language training. Temporary assignments will be pursued to fill any short-term gaps in team capacity.

Budget for evaluation in the Agency includes:

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

The available budget for the evaluation function along with actual expenditures in 2014-2015 and forecasted expenditures in 2015-2016 are shown in the following table.

Table 1: Actual and Forecasted Expenditures, 2015-2016
  Available Budget Expenditures Forecasted Expenditures as % of Available Budget
2014-2015 2015-2016
Actual Forecast
Salaries 498,451 234,338 477,541 95.8%
Project Costs 226,302 32,002 132,000 99.4%
Non Project O&M 20,494 92,880
  724,753 286,834 702,421 96.9%

Evaluation Planning Methodology and Considerations

Under the TB Policy on Evaluation, the Agency is required to evaluate 100% of its direct program spending over a five year period starting with the April 2013 to March 2018 cycle.

Entities for evaluation may consist of:

  • A single sub-program, or a combination of sub-programs defined in the in the PAA;
  • A horizontal activity common to several sub-programs (e.g., the visitor safety component of several visitor experience sub-programs) or a horizontal function (e.g., Aboriginal engagement, consultation and negotiation across sub-programs);
  • A TB requirement as a condition of funding (e.g., law enforcement program, TCH Twinning Project).
  • A G&Cs program, for which evaluations are required under the FAA on a five year cycle[1]; and
  • A cross-government program to support renewal of special purpose funding (e.g., Species at risk).

To assist in evaluation planning, entities are described, documented and prioritized to inform the scope and sequencing of evaluation projects over a five year period. Priority ratings for evaluation are based on ratings of the entity on eight dimensions adapted from the TBS Guide to Developing a Departmental Evaluation Plan.[2] See Appendices C, D, E, and F for more details on priority ratings and other scheduling considerations.

Based on discussions with management teams between December 2014 and January 2015, 20 evaluation entities were identified to guide planning for the next five years (see table below). Most of these entities are either sub-programs within the PAA or combinations of sub-programs.

Both the structuring of entities for evaluation and the scheduling of evaluations has changed significantly from the 2014-2015 evaluation plan. Changes include the addition of Aboriginal Affairs as a new entity, splitting the visitor experience program into various sub-programs, and consolidation of two or more planned evaluations related to the Agency’s smaller heritage systems (i.e., National Urban Park, National Marine Conservation Areas, and Heritage Canals) into larger, more comprehensive system-based evaluations.

Table 2: Parks Canada Evaluation Entities
Type of Entity # Sub-program or process       Planned Expenditures
2015-16 to 2017-18
PA # Sub Program # Priority Rating Yearly Average ($M) Average % of Total DPS
National System Based 1 NP Establishment 1 1.1.1 M 11.6 1% 31%
2 NP Conservation 3 1.2.1 H 86.2 8%
3 NP Visitor Experience 4 1.4.1 H 219.5 21%
4 NHS Designation 1 1.1.3 L 2.7 0% 17%
5 NHS Conservation 2 1.2.4 H 92.1 9%
6 NHS Visitor Experience 4 1.4.4 M 80.1 8%
7 NMCA Establishment 1 1.1.2 M 1.5 0% 1%
NMCA Conservation 2 1.2.3 M 1.5 0%
NMCA Visitor Experience 4 1.4.3 M 2.3 0%
8 NUP Conservation 2 1.2.2 M 5.1 0% 2%
NUP Visitor Experience 4 1.4.2 M 13.1 1%
9 Heritage Canal Visitor Experience 4 1.4.5 H 115.6 11% 21%
Heritage Canal Management 5 1.5.3 H 104.4 10%
10 Other Heritage Places Designation 1 1.1.4 L 5.5 1% 1%
Other Heritage Places Conservation 2 1.2.5 L 5.9 1%
Horizontal 11 Heritage Places Promotion 3 1.3.1 H 27.2 3% 3%
12 Partnering and Participation 3 1.3.2 M 10.7 1% 1%
13 Law Enforcement 2 Na M 8.5 1% 1%
14 Aboriginal Affairs Na Na L      
15 Visitor Safety and Prevention 4 Na M      
Infrastructure Based 16 Townsite Management 5 1.5.1 M 12.4 1% 1%
17 Highway Management 5 1.5.2 H 232.7 22% 22%
18 TCH Twinning 5 1.5.2 -- -- -- --
G&Cs programs 19 General Class Contribution Program (including miscellaneous grants) Na Na L 3.8 Na Na
20 NHS Cost-Sharing Program 2 1.2.5 L 1.2 Na Na

Note 1: The seven sub-programs in yellow account for about 83% of average expenditures per year; only one of these is already covered in the 2013-2018 five year cycle (i.e., NP Conservation).

Note 2: Horizontal evaluations of cross-government programs to support renewal of special purpose funding (e.g., SAR, Contaminated Sites, Clean Air Agenda) are not included in the table; these are led by other federal departments/agencies.

Planned Projects For Next Five Years

The following table shows the past two years of evaluation coverage and the proposed evaluation schedule for the next five year period. This is followed by details of the timing and resource requirements for the 2015-2016 fiscal year.

Five Year Evaluation Schedule

        2015-2016 to 2019-2020 Evaluation Plan Period
# Sub-program or process 1st TB Cycle 2nd TB Cycle
2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20
1 NP Establishment Done               Evaluation      
2 NP Conservation Done               Evaluation  
3 NP Visitor Experience           Evaluation          
4 NHS Designation   In progress               Evaluation    
5 NHS Conservation       Evaluation             Evaluation
6 NHS Visitor Experience       Evaluation              
7 NMCA Establishment             Evaluation        
NMCA Conservation                    
  NMCA Visitor Experience                    
8 NUP Conservation             Evaluation        
NUP Visitor Experience                    
9 Heritage Canal Visitor Experience         Evaluation            
Heritage Canal Management                    
10 Other Heritage Places Designation   In progress               Evaluation    
Other Heritage Places Conservation                    
11 Heritage Places Promotion       Evaluation             Evaluation
12 Partnering and Participation             Evaluation        
13 Law Enforcement   In progress               Evaluation  
14 Aboriginal Affairs Management     Evaluation                
15 Visitor Safety and Prevention         Evaluation            
16 Townsite Management   In progress               Evaluation  
17 Highway Management         Evaluation            
18 TCH Twinning   In progress                    
19 General Class Contribution Program (including miscellaneous grants)     Evaluation                  
20 NHS Cost-Sharing Program         Evaluation              

Projects for 2015-2016

Proposed timing and costs of the projects are outlined below. Estimated resource requirements are for 2015-2016 only.

Topic Requirement for Evaluation Actual or Planned Dates Resources Required
In Previous Plan Start date Completion of fieldwork Completion of report Date of Approval Approx. hours O&M
Total 5530 135
Carried Over From 2014-15
Other Heritage Places Designation and Conservation Policy on Evaluation - DPS Y June 2013 November 2014 January 2015 April 2015 50 5
National Historic Site Designation Policy on Evaluation - DPS Y July 2013 January 2014 January 2015 April 2015 50 5
TCH Twinning in Banff National Park TB Submission Y September 2014 October 2014 November 2015 April 2015 10 5
Law Enforcement TB Submission Y September 2014 May 2015 June 2015 September 2015 750 20
Townsites Management Policy on Evaluation - DPS Y November 2014 May 2015 June 2015 September 2015 750 10
New in 2015-16
Aboriginal Affairs Agency Priority for FY 2015-16 N April 2015 September 2015 December 2015 March 2016 1,500 20
General Class Contribution Program FAA - G&C N April 2015 August 2015 October 2015 December 2015 150 25
National Historic Site Conservation Policy on Evaluation - DPS Y September 2015 January 2016 March 2016 June 2016 750 15
National Historic Site Visitor Experience Policy on Evaluation - DPS N September 2015 January 2016 March 2016 June 2016 750 15
Heritage Places Promotion Policy on Evaluation - DPS Y September 2015 January 2016 March 2016 June 2016 750 15
Contributions to Interdepartmental Evaluations for 2015-16
Climate Change Adaptation (Clean Air Agenda) Evaluation led by EC that includes nine departments funded for climate change adaptation. PCA has a small role in the evaluation. Y June 2014 March 2015 TBD TBD 20 0

Appendix A. Approval Schedule

Proposed Title Link to PAA Coverage Req. Last Approved Evaluation Planned Evaluation Start Date Planned Evaluation Approval Date Estimated G&C Value[3]
Estimated Total Value[4]
(inc. G&C)
FY 2015-2016
National Historic Site Designation P1 DPS   July 2013 April 2015 -- $2.7
Other Heritage Places Designation and Conservation P1,P2 DPS   June 2013 April 2015 $6.3[5] $11.4[6]
Twinning of TransCanada Highway in Banff National Park P5 TB Sub   Sept 2014 April 2015 -- $0[7]
Law Enforcement P2 TB Sub   Oct 2014 Sept 2015 -- $8.5[8]
Townsites Management P5 DPS   Nov 2014 Sept 2015 -- $12.4
General Class Contribution Program (GCCP) n/a G&C Jan 2011 April 2015 Dec 2015 $3.8 --[9]
FY 2016-2017
Aboriginal Affairs Management P3 Risk-based   April 2015 Sept 2016 --[10] TBD
NHS Cost-Sharing Program P2 G&C Dec 2012 April 2016 Dec 2016 $1.2 --[11]
National Historic Sites Conservation P2 DPS   Sept 2015 Mar 2017 -- $92.1
National Historic Sites Visitor Experience P4 DPS Jan 2012[12] Sept 2015 Mar 2017 -- $80.1
Heritage Places Promotion P3 DPS   Sept 2015 Mar 2017 -- $27.2
Visitor Safety and Prevention P4 DPS   April 2016 Mar 2017 --  
Highway Management P5 DPS Jan 2011 April 2016 Mar 2017 -- 232.7
FY 2017-2018
Heritage Canals Management and Visitor Experience P4, P5 DPS Mar 2012[13] April 2016 Sept 2017 -- $220
National Park Visitor Experience P4 DPS Jan 2012[14] Sept 2016 Mar 2018 -- $219.5
National Urban Park Conservation and Visitor Experience P2,P4 DPS   April 2017 Mar 2018 -- $18.2
Partnering and Participation P3 DPS   April 2017 Mar 2018 -- $10.7
FY 2018-2019
NMCA Establishment, Conservation and Visitor Experience P1, P2, P4 DPS Jan 2012[15] April 2017 Sept 2018 -- $5.3
National Park Establishment P1 DPS Mar 2014 April 2018 Sept 2018 -- $11.6
NHS Designations P1 DPS Apr 2015 Sept 2018 Mar 2019 -- $2.7
Other Heritage Places Designation and Conservation P1, P2 DPS Apr 2015 Sept 2018 Mar 2019 $6.3 $11.4
Townsite Management P5 DPS Sept 2015 Sept 2018 Mar 2019 -- $12.4
FY 2019-2020[16]
NP Conservation P2 DPS May 2014 Sept 2018 Sept 2019 -- $86.2
Law Enforcement P2 TB Sub Sept 2015 Apr 2019 Sept 2019 -- $8.5
Townsite Management P5 DPS Sept 2015 Apr 2019 Sept 2019 -- $12.4

Appendix B. Status of Ongoing Programs of Grants and Contributions

Title of Ongoing Programs of G&Cs Type of Instrument Estimated Value 2014-15
Approval Date of Last Evaluation Approval Date of Next Evaluation Comments
General Class Contribution Program (GCCP) Contribution 3,788,275 January 2011 December 2015 GCCP scope is broad; contributes to many of the Agency’s programs and sub-programs.
Grant to the International Peace Garden Grant 22,700 Corresponds to Other Heritage Places Conservation sub-program. Previously evaluated as an appendix to Evaluation of GCCP; same approach to be applied for December 2015.
Funding to Support the TransCanada Trail Foundation’s Fundraising Campaign Grant? 6,250,000 -- Corresponds to Other Heritage Places Designation sub-program. No previous evaluation; will be evaluated as an appendix to Evaluation of GCCP (December 2015).
National Historic Sites Cost-Sharing Program Contribution 1,233,000 December 2012 March 2017 Corresponds to Other Heritage Places Conservation sub-program.
Aboriginal Economic Development Strategic Partnerships Initiative (SPI) Contribution n/a September 2014
(by AANDC)
TBD Corresponds to Partnering and Participation sub-program (Aboriginal Affairs). Parks Canada is one of 15 federal signatories to SPI; AANDC is the lead. Total contribution spending for all federal partners in 2014-15 was $14,450,000.

Appendix C. Priority Assessment Dimensions and Scales

Dimension Score
4 2 0
Materiality >10%
(more than $95M)
5% to 10%
(approx. $51 to 94 M)
(less than $50 M)
TB Commitments Required in the next 12 to 18 months Required but not in the next 18 months None required
TB Commitments include but are not necessarily limited to requirements in the TB Policy on Evaluation (all DPS on 5-year cycle), commitments to conduct evaluations in TB Submissions, and FAA requirements for G&C programs.
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 2015-16 key corporate risks (i.e., competitive position, external development pressures, natural disasters, and asset condition) are rated four. Activities related to other corporate risks are rated a two and activities not clearly related to the risk profile are rated zero.
Known Problems Managers or findings in previous evaluations indicate significant challenges impacting program performance. Managers or findings in previous evaluations indicate some challenges impacting program performance. Managers or findings in previous evaluations indicate few challenges impacting program performance.
Ratings are based on discussion with program managers within the Agency, reports on program performance, and previous audit and evaluation findings. Challenges impacting program performance may be identified in a number of areas, including but not limited to: the completeness of the sub-program’s performance framework (i.e., clarity of program objectives and evidence of systems and activities to monitor and report against related targets), program governance, asset condition, information management, and any reported failures in sub-program performance. New programs or programs that have recently undergone significant restructuring where performance has not yet been assessed are considered higher risk and so are also given higher ratings.
Extensiveness of Program Reach Extensive, national and/or international intended direct program reach. Moderate and/or regional intended direct program reach. Limited and/or localized intended direct program reach.
The extent of program reach relates to the extent of the intended direct reach, i.e., the number of people or groups (communities, stakeholders, NGOs, Aboriginals, etc.) targeted and/or directly impacted by sub-program activities. Most program activities have ultimate beneficiaries, i.e., Canadians as a whole, who are not counted as the program or sub-program reach. When the target reach of a program are organizations or provinces (e.g., NP and NMCA establishment), we count reach as the number of groups targeted and not the size of the constituencies represented by these groups. Sub-programs such as Heritage Places Promotion and Visitor Experience have extensive program reach given they are intended to reach millions of Canadians and international visitors. Low reach is typified by the Other Heritage Places sub-programs, which target a limited number of partners or interested parties.
Complexity of Program High Complexity Moderate Complexity Low Complexity
Program’s complexity is rated given factors such as number of delivery partners, legal context and degree of direct control over outcomes. Highly complex programs are exemplified by the NP and NMCA establishment sub-programs, 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. By contrast, the NHS Designations sub-program is considered to have low complexity given the clear legal framework and its administration of a relatively well-defined and long-established process.
Health, Safety and Environment High degree of consequence associated with program failure. Moderate degree of consequence associated with program failure. Low degree of consequence associated with program failure.
Many of the Agency’s activities require consideration of health, safety and the environment as a fundamental part of program delivery. Considerations for health and safety include visitors (e.g., human wildlife-conflicts, potable water, search and rescue) and Parks Canada employees (e.g., law enforcement), but can also extend to groups or individuals who are directly and indirectly impacted by management decisions (e.g., highway condition, bridge and dam safety). The environmental impact of management decisions can also have important consequences on elements such as species at risk and contaminated sites. Our rating does not assess the nature or quality of management measures to mitigate health, safety or environmental issues involved in sub-program delivery, only the extent to which these considerations are inherent in delivery of the sub-program.
Political and Public Sensitivity High Moderate Low
Ratings for this dimension consider both the extent of recent public or political attention and the likely extent of sensitivity associated with possible program failure. Activities which have received recent public or political attention are rated higher (e.g., changes to visitor service offer), as are activities that have a 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). We also expect political interest related to sub-programs with significant infrastructure investment; these are given at least a ‘moderate’ rating. Sub-programs with high public visibility (e.g., Heritage Places Promotion) are also rated higher.

Appendix D. Corporate Risk Profile 2015-2016[17]

Risk Category and Label Risk Statement Risk Owner
Aboriginal Engagement A diminished level of Aboriginal support for Parks Canada may impact the Agency’s ability to deliver on and advance its programs. Director, Aboriginal Affairs Secretariat
Partnering Parks Canada may not be able to effectively collaborate with potential partners due to internal capacity (such as deficiencies in financial authorities) or external factors. This could limit our ability to leverage opportunities, extend our reach, grow our base of support, and advance our programs. VP, External Relations and Visitor Experience
Public Awareness and Support Local communities, stakeholders, NGOs, and the Canadian public may not be sufficiently aware or supportive of Parks Canada, compromising the Agency’s ability to fulfill its mandate. VP, External Relations and Visitor Experience
Competitive Position Parks Canada programs, services and experiences may be less attractive or less of an interest to Canadians compared to alternative leisure activities. VP, External Relations and Visitor Experience
External Development Pressures External development pressures may limit opportunities for establishment of new national parks and national marine conservation areas; and may affect the ecological integrity of national parks, the ecologically sustainable use of national marine conservation areas, the commemorative integrity of national historic sites, and the heritage value of cultural resources in heritage places. VP, Protected Areas Establishment and Conservation; VP, Heritage Conservation and Commemoration
Natural Disasters Natural disasters may lead to the loss or impairment of natural and cultural resources, visitor experience opportunities and contemporary assets, resulting in increased operational costs and compromising the Agency’s ability to deliver on its mandate. VP, Operations, Eastern Canada; VP, Operations, Western and Northern Canada
Environmental Forces Environmental forces may limit the Agency’s ability to maintain or improve ecological integrity in national parks and to foster ecologically sustainable use of National Marine Conservation Areas. VP, Protected Areas Establishment and Conservation
Parks Canada’s Business Operations
Asset Condition The Agency’s ability to deliver on its mandate is impaired due to an inability to make appropriate ongoing investments for maintenance and recapitalization of its built asset portfolio. Chief Administrative Officer; VP, Heritage Conservation and Commemoration
Information Management Failure to identify, capture, manage, share and report pertinent data, plus maintain security of information and knowledge, may hinder the ability to effectively manage all program areas and meet legal requirements. Chief Administrative Officer

Source: Parks Canada Agency Corporate Risk Profile 2015-16

Appendix E. Past Coverage of the Evaluation Universe (April 2009 to March 2015)

Program and Sub-Programs Parks Canada Evaluations and Interdepartmental Evaluations Work of External Assurance Providers
National Parks
National Park Establishment  
National Park Conservation
National Park Visitor Experience  
National Historic Sites
National Historic Sites Designation
  • Evaluation of Parks Canada’s National Historic Sites Designations
    (Projected: April 2015)
National Historic Site Conservation    
National Historic Site Visitor Experience  
National Marine Conservation Areas
National Marine Conservation Area Establishment  
National Marine Conservation Area Sustainability
National Marine Conservation Area Visitor Experience  
National Urban Park
National Urban Park Conservation    
National Urban Park Visitor Experience    
Other Heritage Places
Other Heritage Places Designation
  • Evaluation of Parks Canada’s Other Heritage Places Programs
    (Projected: April 2015)
Other Heritage Places Conservation  
Heritage Places Promotion    
Partnering and Participation    
Law Enforcement    
Aboriginal Affairs Management    
Visitor Safety and Prevention    
Townsite Management    
Highway Management  
Heritage Canal Management  
Grant and Contribution Programs
National Historic Site Cost-Sharing  
Aboriginal Economic Development Strategic Partnerships Initiative  
  • AANDC - Evaluation of Aboriginal Economic Development Strategic Partnerships Program (2014)

* indicates an interdepartmental evaluation

Appendix F. Agency RMAF Evaluation Commitments 2015-2016

Horizontal Evaluations Parks Canada
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 in 2014-2015 with a target to finish the work in 2015-2016. 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 had 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). An evaluation is underway and should be completed by June 2015.

[1] Evaluation should typically be completed prior to renewal of G&C’s terms and conditions.

[2] The description of priority assessment dimensions was modified for 2015-2016. The evaluation function completed an internal assessment to update priority assessment ratings for each entity in February 2015.

[3] Estimated G&C value derived from Main Estimates 2014-15.

[4] Consistent with Table 2, estimated total DPS presented is three-year average of annual planned spending (2015-16 to 2017-18), from PCA RPP 2015-16.

[5] Related G&C elements are the Grant to International Peace Garden and Funding to Support TransCanada Trail Foundation’s Fundraising Campaign. These were not included in the scope of the current evaluation but will be evaluated with the General Class Contribution Program. The NHS Cost-Sharing Program also contributes to the sub-program; this will be subject to a stand-alone evaluation.

[6] Total excludes estimated related G&C value (to be evaluated with the General Class Contribution Program).

[7] No costs were recorded for 2014-2015 since the project is finished.

[8] Law Enforcement is not included in RPP 2015-16; estimated DPS based on average historical spending as per PCA financial system.

[9] Funding authority that contributes to many Agency programs and sub-programs; no direct associated “program” cost for GCCP.

[10] PCA participates in Aboriginal Economic Development Strategic Partnerships Initiative (SPI), a horizontal G&C that is led and evaluated by AANDC. Total contribution spending for all federal partners in 2014-15 was $14,450,000. PCA-associated expenditures are not known.

[11] NHS Cost-Sharing Program is linked to the Other Heritage Places Conservation sub-program but will be conducted as a stand-alone evaluation.

[12] Evaluation of Parks Canada’s Visitor Service Offer approved in March 2012; included elements relevant to planned evaluation.

[13] Previous evaluation was limited to Heritage Canals Management (PA5); it excluded Visitor Experience (PA2) activities and expectations.

[14] Evaluation of Parks Canada’s Visitor Service Offer approved in March 2012; included elements relevant to planned evaluation.

[15] Evaluation of Parks Canada’s Visitor Service Offer approved in March 2012; included elements relevant to planned evaluation.

[16] Evaluation of NP Conservation scheduled to start in September 2019 will not be completed until September 2020.

[17] Key corporate risks are identified in blue.