Parks Canada
Symbol of the Government of Canada

Common menu bar links

Internal Audit and Evaluation Documents

Multi-Year Evaluation Plan 2016-2017 to 2020-2021

Photos of some Parks Canada sites

July 2016

Final Version
Office of Internal Audit and Evaluation Parks Canada

Recommended for Approval by Parks Canada Executive Management Committee: 15 June 2016
Date approved by CEO: 21 June 2016

Table of Contents

Deputy Head Confirmation

I approve the departmental evaluation plan (DEP) of Parks Canada for the fiscal years 2016-2017 to 2020-2021, 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 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.


___[ORIGINAL SIGNED BY]__________
Daniel Watson
Chief Executive Officer
Parks Canada Agency
_____21 June 2016__


Executive Summary

The Parks Canada 2016-2017 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 2016-2017, 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. For 2016-17, the evaluation function consists of a Chief Evaluation Executive (CEE) and six evaluator positions.

The evaluation universe (i.e., all the individual “evaluable programs”) consists of 23 entities comprised primarily of sub-programs or aspects of sub-programs within the Agency’s Program Alignment Architecture (PAA) as well as the Agency’s two contribution programs. 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.

For 2016-2017, the function will complete five evaluations carried over from 2015-2016, provide ongoing support to two interdepartmental evaluations and launch four new evaluations. The function will also support consulting engagements, as required.


The 2016-2017 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 2016 to March 2021, and details of individual evaluation activities for the FY 2016-2017, 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 and Climate Change. 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 March 2015.

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. Responses are tabled at the Agency’s evaluation committee. The processes continue for five-years or until all planned actions are complete.


Evaluation Committee is the Agency’s Executive Management Committee which is chaired by the CEO. Terms of reference for the committee were updated in November 2015.

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 permanent evaluator positions and one evaluator on assignment.[1]

The effective staff complement for 2016-2017 is estimated to be 5.75 FTEs due to one employee’s language training.

The budget for the Agency’s evaluation function covers salaries (i.e., the six evaluator positions), project O&M (e.g., contract and publication costs) and non-project O&M (e.g., training, office supplies, etc.).

The available budget for the evaluation function along with actual expenditures in 2015-2016 and forecasted expenditures in 2016-2017 are shown in the following table.

Table 1: Actual and Forecasted Expenditures, 2016-2017
Expenditures ($000) Forecasted Expenditures
as % of Available Budget
2015-2016 2016-2017
Actual Forecast
Salaries 600 507 598 100%
Project Costs 240 72 139 100%
Non Project O&M 18 98
Total 840 597 835 100%

Evaluation Planning Methodology and Considerations

Under the TB Policy on Evaluation, the Agency is required to evaluate 100% of its direct program spending (i.e., spending associated with programs and sub-programs in the PAA, where spending on internal services is excluded) over a five year period, starting with the April 2013 to March 2018 cycle. Under the Financial Administration Act (42.1) the Agency is also required to evaluate all its grants and contributions (G&C) programs every five years (unless exempted by TB). Finally, the Agency is required to conduct or participate in specific evaluations when there is a TB requirement, typically as a condition of funding an Agency program (e.g., the law enforcement program) or when receiving funding through a horizontal government initiative (e.g., the species at risk program).

To assist in planning evaluations, we identified 23 entities (i.e., the evaluation universe) that require evaluation coverage over five years. These consist of the 19 sub-programs in the PAA, two G&C programs and two additional entities (i.e., the law enforcement program based on TB requirements and the visitor safety and prevention program given the nature of the inherent risks associated with this activity). These entities do not include horizontal initiatives requiring Agency evaluation participation.

The entities are assigned priority ratings on eight dimensions adapted from the TBS Guide to Developing a Departmental Evaluation Plan. Rating of priorities for this planning period were informed by discussions with members of Executive Management Committee and in some cases their management teams between February and March 2016. See Appendices C, D, and E for more details on priority ratings and other scheduling considerations.

TB Evaluation Policy allows for flexibility on the scope, timing and calibration of evaluation projects within the five year period. Calibration is the process of adjusting elements of the evaluation to the sensitivity required to cost-effectively address the core evaluation questions set out in policy. Depending on the particular evaluation, calibration can involve adjustments that increase or decrease the required level of effort, scope or depth of analysis.

In the case of the Agency, we propose 19 evaluations to cover the 23 entities in the evaluation universe, with coverage to be achieved largely by combining two or more sub-programs within a national system (i.e., NMCA, Heritage Canals, NUP) in the same evaluation project.

The tables below show two views of the evaluation entities grouped by the 19 projects. The first table shows Agency spending by evaluation entities as well as complete, in progress or proposed projects for 2016-2017. The second table provides more details of evaluation coverage and plans over the first TB cycle (April 2013 to March 2018) and the additional three years covered by this evaluation plan.

Table 2: Parks Canada Evaluation Entities and Coverage
Type of Entity # Sub Program or process Pa
Sub Program
Priority Rating Planned Expenditures Coverage
2014-15 to 2018-19
Yearly Average
Average % of Total DPS Status
National System Based 1 NP Establishment 1 1.1.1 M 9.7 1% 38% Done
2 NP Conservation 3 1.2.1 H 90.6 9% Done
3 NP Visitor Experience 4 1.4.1 H 274.2 28% 2016-2017
4 NHS Designation 1 1.1.3 L 1.7 0% 15% Done
5 NHS Conservation 2 1.2.4 H 78.5 8% In Progress
6 NHS Visitor Experience 4 1.4.4 H 66 7% In progress
7 NMCA Establishment 1 1.1.2 M 1.6 0% 1% 2017-2018
NMCA Conservation 2 1.2.3 M 2.7 0%
NMCA Visitor Experience 4 1.4.3 M 3.6 0%
8 NUP Conservation 2 1.2.2 M 4 0% 2% 2017-2018
NUP Visitor Experience 4 1.4.2 M 12.6 1%
9 Heritage Canal Visitor Experience 4 1.4.5 H 70.5 7% 19% 2016-2017
Heritage Canal Management 5 1.5.3 H 114.4 12%
10 Other Heritage Places Designation 1 1.1.4 L 5.3 0% 1% Done
Other Heritage Places Conservation 2 1.2.5 L 3.7 0%
External Relations 11 Heritage Places Promotion 3 1.3.1 H 28.5 3% 3% 2017-2018
12 Partnering and Participation 3 1.3.2 M 14.3 2% 2% 2017-2018
Infrastructure Based 13 Townsite Management 5 1.5.1 M 12.4 1% 1% In progress
14 Highway Management 5 1.5.2 H 173 16% 16% 2016-2017
Horizontal – Internal 15 Law Enforcement 2 Na M 8.5 1% 1% In progress
17 Visitor Safety and Prevention 4 Na H n/a n/a n/a 2017-2018
G&Cs programs 18 General Class Contribution Program (including miscellaneous grants) Na Na L n/a n/a n/a In progress
19 NHS Cost-Sharing Program 2 1.2.5 L n/a n/a n/a 2016-2017
Horizontal – External 20 Clean Air Agenda 2 not applicable IN progress
21 Species at Risk 2

Note 1:  The seven sub-programs in yellow account for about 89% of average expenditures per year

Note 2: Horizontal evaluations of cross-government programs to support renewal of special purpose funding (i.e., Species at Risk, Clean Air Agenda) are included in the table; these are led by other federal departments/agencies.

Planned Projects For Next Five Years

The table below shows evaluation coverage over the first TB cycle (April 2013 to March 2018) and the proposed evaluation schedule for the five year period covered by this plan.[2]

  2016-17 to 2020-21 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 2020-21
1.    NP Establishment Done                 Evaluation        
2.    NP Conservation Done           Evaluation        
3.    NP Visitor Experience       Evaluation                  
4.    NHS Designation   Done             Evaluation    
5.    NHS Conservation     In Progress               Evaluation
6.    NHS Visitor Experience     In Progress               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 Design.   Done             Evaluation    
Other Heritage Places Conservation                  
11.    Heritage Places Promotion           Evaluation            
12.    Partnering and Participation           Evaluation            
13.    Townsite Management     In Progress           Evaluation    
14.    Highway Management         Evaluation              
15.    Law Enforcement     In Progress             Evaluation  
16.    Visitor Safety and Prevention           Evaluation            
17.    General Class Contribution[3]     In Progress         EVAL.        
18.    NHS Cost-Sharing         EVAL               EVAL.
19.    Clean Air Agenda   In Progress                  
20.    Species at Risk     In Progress                

Projects for 2016-2017

Proposed timing and costs of the projects are outlined below. Estimated resource requirements are for 2016-2017 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
Carried Over From 2015-16
Law Enforcement TB Submission Y November 2014 November 2015 April 2016 June 2016 250 10
Townsites Management Policy on Evaluation - DPS Y November 2014 October 2015 April 2016 June 2016 120 10
NHS Conservation Policy on Evaluation - DPS Y September 2015 May 2016 August 2016 Sept. 2016 1000 11
NHS Visitor Experience Policy on Evaluation - DPS Y September 2015 May 2016 August 2016 Sept. 2016 1000 11
GCCP FAAG&C Y October 2015 March 2016 April 2016 June 2016 120 10
New in 2016-17
NHS Cost-Sharing Program FAAG&C Y Sept 2016 Nov 2016 Jan 2017 March 2017 120 0
National Park Visitor Experience Policy on Evaluation - DPS Y May 2016 March 2017 July 2017 Sept. 2017 975 53
Heritage Canal Management (includes Visitor Experience) Policy on Evaluation - DPS Y September 2016 April 2017 December 2017 March 2018 700 13
Highway Management Policy on Evaluation - DPS Y September 2016 April 2017 Dec. 2017 March 2018 700 13
Contributions to Interdepartmental Evaluations for 2016-17
Climate Change Adaptation (Clean Air Agenda) Evaluation led by ECCC that includes nine departments funded for climate change adaptation. PCA has a small role in the evaluation. Y June 2014 March 2015 TBD TBD 7.5 0
Species at Risk Evaluation led by ECCC that includes ECCC, DFO and PCA. PCA has a relatively large role in the evaluation. N December 2015 September 2016 March 2017 June 2017 55 0
Total 5,048 130

Appendix A.  Evaluation Approval Schedule

The following table is organized by planned approval date for internal evaluation projects. External horizontal evaluations and consulting engagements are excluded.

Proposed Title Link to PAA Coverage Req. Last Approved Evaluation Planned Evaluation Start Date Planned Evaluation Approval Date Estimated G&C Value[4]
Estimated Total Value[5]
(inc. G&C)
FY 2016-2017
Law Enforcement P2 TB Sub n/a Nov 2014 June 2016 -- $8.5[6]
Townsites Management P5 DPS n/a Nov 2014 June 2016 -- $12.4
General Class Contribution Program (GCCP) n/a G&C Jan 2011 Oct 2015 June 2016 $3.8 --[7]
National Historic Sites Conservation P2 DPS n/a Sept 2015 Sept 2016 -- $78.5
National Historic Sites Visitor Experience P4 DPS Jan 2012[8] Sept 2015 Sept 2016 -- $66.0
NHS Cost-Sharing Program P2 G&C Dec 2012 Sept 2016 March2017 $1 --[9]
FY 2017-2018
National Park Visitor Experience P4 DPS Jan 2012[8] May 2016 Sept 2017 -- $274.2
Highway Management P5 DPS Jan 2011 Sept 2016 March 2018 -- $173.0
Heritage Canals P4, P5 DPS Mar 2012[10] Sept 2016 March 2018 -- $184.9
National Marine Conservation Areas P1, P2, P4 DPS Jan 2012[8] April 2017 March 2018 -- $7.9
National Urban Park P2,P4 DPS n/a April 2017 March 2018 -- $16.6
Partnering and Participation P3 DPS n/a April 2017 March 2018 -- $14.3
Heritage Places Promotion P3 DPS n/a April 2017 March 2018 -- $28.5
Visitor Safety and Prevention P4 DPS n/a April 2017 March 2018 -- TBD
FY 2018-19
National Park Establishment P1 DPS Mar 2014 April 2018 March 2019 -- $9.7
NP Conservation P2 DPS May 2014 April 2018 March 2019 -- $90.6
General Class Contribution Program (GCCP) n/a G&C June 2016[11] Sept 2019 March 2019 $3.8 --
FY 2019-2020
NHS Designations P1 DPS July 2015 April 2019 March 2020 -- $1.7
Other Heritage Places Designation and Conservation P1, P2 DPS July 2015 April 2019 March 2020 $5.8 $9.0
Townsite Management P5 DPS June 2016[11] April 2019 March 2020 -- $12.4
FY 2020-2021
Law Enforcement P2 TB Sub June 2016[11] Sept 2019 Sept 2020 -- $8.5
National Historic Sites Conservation P2 DPS Sept 2016[11] April 2020 March 2021 -- $78.5
National Historic Sites Visitor Experience P4 DPS Sept 2016[11] April 2020 March 2021 -- $66.0
NHS Cost-Sharing Program P2 G&C Dec 2016[11] Sept 2020 March 2021 $1M --[12]

Appendix B. Status of Ongoing Programs of Grants and Contributions

Title of Ongoing Programs of G&Cs Type of Instrument Estimated Value 2016-17
Approval Date of Last Evaluation Approval Date of Next Evaluation Comments
General Class Contribution Program (GCCP) Contribution 3,777,924 January 2011 June 2016 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 applied in current Evaluation of GCCP.
Funding to Support the TransCanada Trail Foundation’s Fundraising Campaign Grant 5,800,000 -- Corresponds to Other Heritage Places Designation sub-program. No previous evaluation; currently being evaluated as an appendix to Evaluation of GCCP.
National Historic Sites Cost-Sharing Program Contribution 1,000,000 December 2012 December 2016 Corresponds to Other Heritage Places Conservation sub-program.
Aboriginal Economic Development Strategic Partnerships Initiative (SPI) Contribution n/a September 2014
(by INAC)
TBD Corresponds to Partnering and Participation sub-program (Aboriginal Affairs). Parks Canada is one of 15 federal signatories to SPI; INAC is the lead. Total contribution spending for all federal partners in 2014-15 was $14,450,000.

Appendix C. Dimensions for Evaluation Priority Ratings

Dimension Score
4 2 0
Materiality >10%
(more than $97M)
5% to 10%
(approx.  $48 to 96 M)
(less than $47 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 2016-17 key corporate risks (i.e., environment forces adaptation and response; infrastructure project delivery, connecting with Canadians; external development pressures; indigenous relationships) 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. Past Coverage of the Evaluation Universe (April 2010 to March 2016)

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  
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    
Heritage Canals
Heritage Canal Visitor Experience    
Heritage Canal Management  
Other Heritage Places
Other Heritage Places Designation  
Other Heritage Places Conservation  
Promotion and Public Support
Heritage Places Promotion    
Partnering and Participation    
Horizontal - Internal
Law Enforcement    
Visitor Safety and Prevention    
Townsite Management    
Highway Management  
Grant and Contribution Programs
National Historic Site Cost-Sharing  
Aboriginal Economic Development Strategic Partnerships Initiative  
  • INAC – Evaluation of Aboriginal Economic Development Strategic Partnerships Program (2014)

* indicates an interdepartmental evaluation

Appendix E. Agency Evaluation Commitments 2016-2017

Horizontal Evaluations Parks Canada
Evaluation of Climate Change Adaptation: This evaluation, led by ECCC, includes nine departments that have received funding for climate change adaptation. Parks Canada is expected to have a small role in the evaluation. The evaluation is underway and should be completed in 2016-2017. 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 2016. 
Evaluation of the Species at Risk Program: This evaluation, led by ECCC, includes the three federal leads on implementation of the Species at Risk Act (i.e., ECCC, DFO and PCA). Parks Canada is expected to have a large role in the evaluation. The evaluation is underway and should be completed by June 2017.  

[1] An additional funded Senior Evaluator (ES-05) position was recently approved. Actions are underway to create this position and permanently deploy the evaluator on assignment.

[2]  In 2016-2017 some evaluator time is allocated to consulting projects, as well as evaluation projects.

[3]  Evaluation of General Class Contribution Program includes evaluation of miscellaneous grants.

[4]  Estimated G&C value derived from Main Estimates 2016-17.

[5]  Consistent with Table 2, estimated total DPS presented is five-year average of annual planned spending (2014-15 to 2018-19). Data is derived from PCA DPR 2014-15, PCA RPP 2015-16 and PCA RPP 2016-17.

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

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

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

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

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

[11]  Indicates planned approval date based on five-year schedule.

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