2019 Annual Revenue Forecasting

2019 Jurisdictional Scan: Annual Revenue Forecasting
Does your jurisdiction use specific forecasting tools taking into account external factors like weather, economic trends, population growth, etc.? Do you use previous year’s revenue or average of previous years?
JURISDICTIONREPLIEDYES/NOCONTACT NAME
B.C PARKSX
ALBERTA PARKSInquiring JurisdictionScott Jones
Original Email: Alberta Parks is interested in knowing what processes are used across the country in determining annual revenue forecasting for the upcoming budget year.Do you use specific forecasting tools taking into account external factors like weather, economic trends, population growth etc. Do you use previous year’s revenue or averages of previous years? Something else?We’ll compile all the info that we receive and distribute it back out.Please send a contact for us to follow-up with and/or your responses to Caroline Crell (cc’d) by November 29th.
SASKATCHEWAN PARKSNO/YESBruce McCannel
COMMENTS: We base our budget forecasts largely off of past year actuals then make adjustments for changes to fees or programming. We incorporate three year averages for some revenue items when past year actuals include variations not expected to continue. We consider factors like weather events or economic trends more so on reviewing past years, part of determining whether or not the past year actuals are appropriate to use or to use three year actuals.We do not use population growth or other external factors to forecast out year revenue though I would like to be able to.
MANITOBA PARKSNO/NOJ.P Perreault
COMMENTS: Manitoba does not use tools when forecasting revenue for budget preparation. We only consider adjustments in revenue when there are changes to fees.
ONTARIO PARKSNO/YESMichael Magnus 
COMMENTS:Ontario Parks uses three year average and well as approved multi-year fee increases to forecast revenue for the up-coming budget year.We hope to get more sophisticated as our new reservation and registration service is now up and running.
SEPAQ (QUEBEC)YES/YESAnne Bourget
COMMENTS: (Français)Auxquels on ajoute ou enlève :- L’indexation, en fonction de la tarification approuvée pour l’année N sans aucune variation de volume, mais en incluant les refontes de tarification;- La croissance organique prévue, en fonction de l’historique des trois dernières années pour la demande, les taux d’occupation et les revenus, des tendances du marché et de l’offre résiduelle.- La croissance prévue due à de nouvelles infrastructures, services ou activités de l’année N;- La croissance prévue due à l’ouverture ou la disponibilité sur une année complète de nouvelles infrastructures, services ou activités de l’année N-1 qui étaient ouverts ou disponibles une portion de l’année seulement en N-1;- Les autres mouvements dans l’ouverture ou la disponibilité des infrastructures, services ou activités (exemple : fermeture pour des travaux, démolition d’une infrastructure, abandon d’un service ou d’une activité…);- Les évènements spéciaux mesurables qui ont influencé l’année N-1 et qui ne se reproduiront plus dans l’année N (exemple : Contrainte météorologique inhabituelle, bris important non récurrent, grève, contexte social…).= Projection pour l’année N.
(English)“To which we add or remove:- Indexing, according to the approved pricing for year N without any change in volume, but including pricing redesigns;- The expected organic growth, based on the history of the last three years for demand, occupancy rates and revenues, market trends and residual supply.- The expected growth due to new infrastructures, services or activities in year N;- The expected growth due to the opening or availability over a full year of new infrastructures, services or activities of year N-1 which were open or available a portion of the year only in N-1;- Other movements in the opening or availability of infrastructure, services or activities (example: closure for works, demolition of an infrastructure, abandonment of a service or activity …);- The measurable special events which influenced the year N-1 and which will not happen again in the year N (example: Unusual weather constraint, significant non-recurring breakage, strike, social context …).= Projection for year N.
NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR PARKSNO/YESSian French
COMMENTS: We just use previous year’s revenue.  All revenue here goes directly to consolidated general revenue.
NOVA SCOTIA PARKSNO/YESMatt Parker
COMMENTS:  As a rule of thumb, we forecast our revenue by taking the previous three-year avg trend (up or down) and applying it to the forecast.For example, if the avg growth has been 5% over the last three years we will use previous years revenue plus 5% as our forecast.  In addition to this, our finance person and myself have a discussion to ensure we are considering any external factors.  For example, next year Parks Canada is closing approximately 300 front country campsites for redevelopment in Nova Scotia, we anticipate our growth to be more next year and declining a bit the next year.  This is factored into our forecast.
PARKS NEW BRUNSWICKX
P.E.I PARKSNO/YESShane Arbig
COMMENTS: In PEI we use the previous years revenue to forecast the coming fiscal. We do take into account weather and will look back a few years to determine a number if we have had an usually poor weather season. Hope this helps. Anything else let me know. Thanks.
GOVERNMENT OF NORTHWEST TERRITORIES PARKSX
NUNAVUT PARKSX
YUKON PARKSNO/YES
COMMENTS:Yukon uses a persistence forecast– they predict revenue based on the same values as the previous year and adjust their fees accordingly in line with expenditures. Target for recovery is 20% but currently they achieve about 10%.
PARKS CANADAYES/YESMichael Nadler
COMMENTS: We do both.  We have a formal revenue forecast that we develop with our Chief Financial Officer that allows us to populate business unit budgets each April.  This forecast is based largely on the previous year’s revenues for each business unit.  However, we also have a small group that does visitation forecasting.  We could walk you through our model, but it does take into account variables like weather and economic trends.  We can estimate possible increases in visitation from this, and so make estimates on revenues.  However, we are finding right now that our visitors are spending more per visit than in the past, so something is happening that our models don’t perfectly capture.

Response Rate: 9/13 for 69%

Key Findings:

  • It is most common to forecast a budget based on either the previous years revenues or on the average of the past three years revenues. Each was reported with equal frequency. Saskatchewan parks normally rely on the past year model, incorporating the three year model when the past year included items that were specific to that year. 
  • It is uncommon to use tools such as weather forecasting and economic trends in budget forecasting, however there is an interest in these more sophisticated models.
  • Sepaq also uses anticipated growth of infrastructure and services to help budget their forecast. 
  • Weather and other influencers can be used to understand past years revenues to better forecast future budgets

Future Questions to Ask:

  • Some jurisdictions seem to have better access to/more thoroughly developed tools for forecasting their budgets. Can these be shared with other jurisdictions to use at their discretion? What tools are most efficient in which jurisdictions? 
  • Is there a forecasting tool that would be most effective for all jurisdictions? What is the experience of each jurisdiction with their current budget forecasting procedure?

Links to Resources: 

2019 Licensing Fees Concessionaires

2019 Jurisdictional Scan: Licensing Fees Concessionaires
Does your agency have a “formula” or standard way to determine licence fees for concessionaires? Further, are your licence fees a percentage of gross revenue or a fixed rate per month of the operating season?Does your agency have fuelling stations or gas sales as a concession? If so, do you use a licence fee per litre sold, or does the licence fee simply follow the standard set for all concessionaires?
JURISDICTIONREPLIEDYES/NOCONTACT NAME
B.C PARKSNOSydney Martin
COMMENTS: 1. Does your agency have a “formula” or standard way to determine licence fees forconcessionaires? Further, are your licence fees a percentage of gross revenue or a fixed rate per month of the operating season?BC Parks does not have a standard or formula for determining fees for concessions. As ourFrontcountry campgrounds are run by third-party businesses (“Park Operators” or POs), weauthorize POs to offer concessions (known as “Service Plus”) through our contracts with them. While BC Parks must approve of all Service Plus activities proposed, we do not normally negotiate a percentage of gross revenue. We have one park in our system (Mt. Robson) that has a specific agreement to return 20% of proceeds from their sales of merchandise (10% of which is invested right back into park specific projects, and 10% is applied to the contractual cost BC Parks pays this PO). However, this situation is unique and was negotiated as a one-off.2. Does your agency have fuelling stations or gas sales as a concession? If so, do you use a licence fee per litre sold, or does the licence fee simply follow the standard set for all concessionaires?BC Parks does not have any fuelling stations or gas sales in our protected areas.
ALBERTA PARKSX
SASKATCHEWAN PARKSYESBruce McCannel
COMMENTS:1. We determine lease fees largely off of gross revenue, our policies are available at:
https://www.saskatchewan.ca/government/doing-business-with-government/operating-a-business-in-a-provincial-park (link no longer operational)
https://publications.saskatchewan.ca/#/categories/2594 
2. Yes, we do allow gas sales, the fee is detailed in the links above.
We are currently conducting some internal research on our methods and whether or not theycontinue to be the most effective and efficient. Though it is not at the stage where I wouldinclude this information in a jurisdictional scan if you would like to discuss please feel free to give me a call. (306)787-2948
MANITOBA PARKSX
ONTARIO PARKSN/A 
COMMENTS:Excel document in Resources below
SEPAQ (QUEBEC)X
NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR PARKSSOMEWHAT/NOGeoff Bailey
COMMENTS: 1. Does your agency have a “formula” or standard way to determine licence fees forconcessionaires? Further, are your licence fees a percentage of gross revenue or a fixed rateper month of the operating season? We only have four private sector operators within provincial parks in NL and only one of which has cabin rentals and a storefront. Our private sector operators are required to enter into lease agreements with us with terms and conditions based on the operation. All operational costs associated with the private sector operation are the responsibility of the operator and we do not collect any other fees from them. All tourism operators in the province are required to pay an annual tourism operator licence.
2. Does your agency have fuelling stations or gas sales as a concession? If so, do you use a licence fee per litre sold, or does the licence fee simply follow the standard set for allconcessionaires? We don’t have any gas/fueling concessionaires
NOVA SCOTIA PARKSX
PARKS NEW BRUNSWICKInquiring JurisdictionPascale Lea Ouellette
COMMENTS: Do any jurisdictions have a “formula” or standard way to determine licence fees for concessionaires? Further, are your licence fees a percentage of gross revenue or a fixed rate per month of the operating season?
On another note, do any jurisdictions have a fuelling station or gas sales as a concession? If so, do you use a licence fee per litre sold, or does the licence fee simply follow the standard set for all concessionaires?
Thanks in advance for the knowledge sharing opportunity and I hope to cross paths again soon!
P.E.I PARKSX
GOVERNMENT OF NORTHWEST TERRITORIES PARKSX
NUNAVUT PARKSNOLinda Vaillancourt
COMMENTS: Pascale, our response to both of your questions is negative.
YUKON PARKSX
PARKS CANADAX

Response Rate: 5/13 for 38%

Key Findings:

  • Jurisdictions are across the board on their approach to concessionaires agreements, ranging from having guiding policies, to negotiating per agreement, to basing each agreement on gross revenue. 

Future Questions to Ask:

  • Revisit question in the future to capture more responses
  • Are there policies that exist that could be applied across jurisdictions to provide consistency and support for agreement making, but also provide the flexibility that each jurisdiction needs?

Links to Resources: 

2019 Off Road Vehicles

2019 Jurisdictional Scan: Off Road Vehicles (AU)
Does your jurisdiction have procedures for managing motorised recreation in parks and forests, specifically side by side vehicles?
JURISDICTIONREPLIEDYES/NOCONTACT NAME
QUEENSLAND PARKS AND WILDLIFE SERVICEInquiring JurisdictionTodd Kelly
Original Email:I am wri(ng from the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service in Australia seeking advice on the management of motorised recreation in parks and forests in Canada. Your contact details were provided to me by my Deputy Director General, Mr Ben Klaassen.
We are specifically interested in the management and use of vehicles which are referred to here in Australia as side by side vehicles, or what I believe in Canada are called UTV’s or ROHV’s. The picture below provides an example of the vehicle type I am enquiring about.
Currently these vehicles are not allowed to operate for recreational purposes on public roads,including those in national parks and State forests in Queensland. This is because they do notmeet the necessary road safety standards required to operate on public roads (roads and tracks in parks and forests are public roads and subject to the same legislative framework for vehicle use as paved streets and highways).
Recently an off road recreational user group, backed by manufacturers has been lobbyinggovernment to open access to forest roads. They have indicated that such vehicles are able to be used in Canada for recreational purposes and I am seeking advice on how such vehicle use is managed in parks and forests.
I would greatly appreciate it if you could direct me to someone in Parks Canada who could advise me in detail on management of such use, I have a few questions to ask.
Prior to Ben providing your details I did also send this request to the general information emailaddress for Parks Canada – apologies for the double up.
B.C PARKSX
ALBERTA PARKSYESNancy MacDonald
COMMENTS: Note the province of Alberta has 8 separate parks classifica.ons that fall under 3 different pieces of legislation. Outside of Alberta Parks is known as public land and it has its own rules within public land use zones, linked below.
The Provincial Parks Act prohibits random recreational off-highway vehicle (OHV) use in Wildland Parks, Provincial Parks and Provincial Recreation Areas, and permits their use only by exception on trails specifically designated and signed for such use. Pursuant to the Wilderness Areas, Ecological Reserves, Natural Areas and Heritage Rangelands Act, the use of a recrea.onal motorized vehicle is prohibited in Wilderness Areas, Ecological Reserves and Heritage Rangelands.
In Alberta Parks where off-highway vehicle (OHV) use is allowed, some activities or access may be restricted to protect sensitive areas and species or to address public safety or wildlife management issues. Where it is allowed, riders must stay on designated OHV trails and obey all signs. Some parks have OHV riding opportunities on vacant public land in the vicinity.
OHV use is permitted on trails in approved areas in public land use zones. Please see the Alberta Environment & Parks website for informa.on about motorized recreation on public land.Alberta’s Provincial Parks Act recognizes the Traffic Safety Act to define the types of vehicles that are off-highway vehicles.The chart below summarizes the specific Alberta Parks classifica.ons in which OHV use may occur.
1. Recreational access to grazing leases in Heritage Rangelands is by permission of the lease holder within predetermined access conditions.6. On designated trails or areas only. New motorized use is permitted within the classification but may not be permitted or suitable in all sites based on site values and objectives.
SASKATCHEWAN PARKSX
MANITOBA PARKSX
ONTARIO PARKSYESBrad Steinberg /Brendan Shepherd 
COMMENTS:Attached is an answer to the information request regarding off road vehicle information in Ontario, Canada. Thanks to Brendan Shepherd for pulling this together.
There are several types of protected areas in Ontario, including National, Provincial (state) and municipal protected areas. The two types that Ontario Parks manages are called Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves. Conservation Reserves are generally free use, while provincial parks often have fees, infrastructure, and dedicated staff.
In the province of Ontario, side-by-side vehicles are generally permitted in conservation reserves and prohibited in provincial parks. Their use in the province is regulated by provincial legislation including the Highway Traffic Act, Off-Road Vehicles Act, and Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, 2006.For provincial parks, side-by-side vehicle use is prohibited by the Provincial Parks: General Provisions Regulation made under the Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves Act, 2006 unless the park superintendent gives written authorization or the vehicle is used in an area of the park operated for the purpose of off-road vehicle use. For these exceptions, park superintendents are guided by the considerations to be made under section 34 of the Provincial Parks: General Provisions Regulation as well as the provincial park’s management direction. In the case of Ontario’s 8 wilderness class provincial parks, mechanized travel isadditionally restricted in those parks by Ontario Regulation 346/07.
For conservation reserves, side-by-side use is generally permitted by the Conservation Reserves: General Provisions Regulation on existing roads and trails. Side-by-side use is also permitted on ice, or elsewhere in the conservation reserve for the purpose of retrieving harvested game, or with written authorization of the conservation reserve manager. Conservation managers are guided by the considerations to be made under paragraph 13 (1) (iii) of the Conservation Reserves: General Provisions Regulation as well as the conservation reserves’ management direction.
The use of side-by-side vehicles on public highways, including within provincial parks and conservation reserves, is regulated by Part X.3 of the Highway Traffic Act and Ontario Regulation 316/03 made under that Act, as well as subsection 2 (2) of the Off-Road Vehicles Act. These statutes set out when and where side-by-sides can be operated on public highways, the equipment and operation requirements and exemptions that apply to parts of the province, public works functions, farmers and trappers, or crossing a highway.
If there’s anything else we can help with please don’t hesitate to reach out toBrendan (Brendan.Shepherd@ontario.ca) or myself.
SEPAQ (QUEBEC)X
NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR PARKSX
NOVA SCOTIA PARKSX
PARKS NEW BRUNSWICKX
P.E.I PARKSX
GOVERNMENT OF NORTHWEST TERRITORIES PARKSX
NUNAVUT PARKSX
YUKON PARKSX
PARKS CANADAX

Response Rate: 2/13 for 15%

Key Findings:

  • Too few responses to provide broader findings. 
  • Responding jurisdictions did have in depth legislation for the management of Off Road Vehicles such as side by sides. 
  • Responding jurisdictions noted that permittance of Off Road Vehicles varied for different conservation areas, i.e vehicles may be permitted in less sensitive areas but not permitted in more sensitive areas. 

Future Questions to Ask:

  • Revisit this question in the future to gain better understanding of provincial approaches to Off Road Vehicles – very pertinent and important question to explore. 
  • Can Off Road Vehicle users play an important role in conservation of certain areas?
  • Does your jurisdiction have a partnership/relationship with local Off Road Vehicles user groups? What does this relationship look like/has it benefited your park(s)?

Links to Resources: 

2019 Parks Agency Apps

2019 Jurisdictional Scan: Park Apps
Does your agency have an App to share information and support service delivery for parks in your system? If yes, please provide contact for follow up. 
JURISDICTIONREPLIEDYES/NOCONTACT NAME
B.C PARKSX
ALBERTA PARKSNOScott Jones /Heather Lambert
COMMENTS: Alberta doesn’t have an app, but our main website and our reservation website are mobile friendly. Please follow up with Heather as needed. 
SASKATCHEWAN PARKSX
MANITOBA PARKSInquiring JurisdictionNOJ.P. Perreault
Original Email: Manitoba Parks is looking into the possible development of an application to improve our service to park users and ultimately control the demand for printed materials. In later development stages, we wonder if this type of application could even open up some dynamic information for park users based on GPS capabilities. Would you be able to facilitate an information exchange (email call-out) with the CPC to help us in our planning and feasibility stage? Specifically, we would be very interested to find out if others have developed (or are currently developing) a public facing application similar to what we are investigating. For those who can provide some applicable feedback, we would be very interested in connecting and finding out some details about their experience and the scope of their application.
ONTARIO PARKSX 
SEPAQ (QUEBEC)X
NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR PARKSNOSian French
COMMENTS: None
NOVA SCOTIA PARKSNOMatt Parker
COMMENTS: None
PARKS NEW BRUNSWICKX
P.E.I PARKSX
GOVERNMENT OF NORTHWEST TERRITORIES PARKSX
NUNAVUT PARKSX
YUKON PARKSNOMike Etches
COMMENTS:Sadly, no
PARKS CANADAYESMichael Nadler /Valerie Chartrand
COMMENTS: Parks Canada has a mobile app available at the App Store and the Google PlayStore. The best point of contact is a wonderful person named Valerie Chartrand. She can bereached at valerie.chartrand@canada.ca.

Response Rate: 5/13 for 38%

Key Findings:

  • None of the responding provincial agencies had an App. Alberta’s website is mobile friendly. 
  • Parks Canada is the only responding jurisdiction with an App.

Future Questions to Ask:

  • For provincial jurisdictions who may face larger obstacles to funding, would a website that is mobile friendly be a sufficient tool or would an App still be ideal?

Links to Resources: 

2019 Photo Contests

2019 Jurisdictional Scan: Photo Contests
Has your jurisdiction held a photo contest recently and would you be willing to share supporting materials?
JURISDICTIONREPLIEDYES/NOCONTACT NAME
B.C PARKSX
ALBERTA PARKSX
SASKATCHEWAN PARKSX
MANITOBA PARKSX
ONTARIO PARKSX 
SEPAQ (QUEBEC)X
NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR PARKSInquiring JurisdictionSian French
COMMENTS: Has anyone run a photo contest recently? And if so, are you willing to share the supportingmaterials? We are planning to run a contest in January to augment our image database insupport of a new client facing website we are hoping to launch in the spring. Any samples ofsubmission forms, consent forms, contest rules, eligibility rules, image criteria, etc. would bemuch appreciated.
NOVA SCOTIA PARKSX
PARKS NEW BRUNSWICKX
P.E.I PARKSX
GOVERNMENT OF NORTHWEST TERRITORIES PARKSX
NUNAVUT PARKSX
YUKON PARKSX
PARKS CANADANO/YESElisabeth Lacoursière
COMMENTS: Parks Canada has not organised a photo contest in recent years, but here are a few othertools/examples that could proof helpful.To see a great example of how to run a contest on social media following the GoC regulations(i.e. in line with the Privacy Act), check out the Canada Youth Summit – Video Challenge, where they ask people to share videos on social media, but they HAVE TO enter on their website to be eligible to win:· Tweet example: https://twitter.com/CanadianPM/status/1113788313373040640 · Entry Form: https://www1.canada.ca/en/contact/video_challenge.html · Rules and Regulation: https://www.canada.ca/en/youth/services/canada-youth-summit/rules-Regulations.html (link no longer active)
We have a contact in Social Media at PMO – the contest lead – in case they need more information. Also happy to share the rules and regulations attached from our Discover Canada Contest (needed strong support from legal services), and a copy of our declaration and release form that winners sign.It’s also important to note that if they plan on running a national contest open to Québec with a prize that has monetary value, they must register their contest with the Regie des alcools, des courses et des jeux in Quebec, and pay the applicable fee (3% of the contest prizing):https://www.racj.gouv.qc.ca/en/forms-and-publications/forms/publicity-contests.html

Response Rate: 1/13 for 8%

Key Findings:

  • Not enough responses to provide key findings

Future Questions to Ask:

  • Revisit question at a later date to capture more responses

Links to Resources: 

2019 Special Events Policy

2019 Jurisdictional Scan: Special Events
Does Ontario Parks have a Special Events Policy they would be willing to share?
JURISDICTIONREPLIEDYES/NOCONTACT NAME
B.C PARKSn/a
ALBERTA PARKSn/a
SASKATCHEWAN PARKSInquiring JurisdictionNick Teramura
Original Email:(From Ontario Parks, forwarding Saskatchewan request)Apologies if I’ve directed this request to the wrong area. If you aren’t able to support this request, I ask that you kindly forward to the relevant group.I work in the Tourism ADMO in the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport and I received a cold call from Shantelle Sjuberg at Parks Saskatchewan asking for Ontario Parks’ Special Event Policy. Shantelle explained that Parks Saskatchewan is undertaking a jurisdictional scan to help inform the development of their new Special Event Policy. As Tourism is not the appropriate area to respond to this request, I was hoping you could provide a contact that I might forward to Shantelle.Once again, apologies if I’ve sent this to you in error and thanks in advance for considering this request!Nick Teramura416-325-8563
MANITOBA PARKSn/a
ONTARIO PARKS 
COMMENTS:Links below
SEPAQ (QUEBEC)n/a
NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR PARKSn/a
NOVA SCOTIA PARKSn/a
PARKS NEW BRUNSWICKn/a
P.E.I PARKSn/a
GOVERNMENT OF NORTHWEST TERRITORIES PARKSn/a
NUNAVUT PARKSn/a
YUKON PARKSn/a
PARKS CANADAn/a

Response Rate: Not Applicable

Key Findings:

  • Not Applicable

Future Questions to Ask:

  • Question could be reapproached for all Jurisdictions to provide broader knowledge on Special Events Agreements

Links to Resources: 

2019 Annual Summary

CPC Jurisdictional Scans Year at a Glance
Year: 2019
Total # of Scans: 13
Themes: Annual Revenue Forecasting
Alcohol Practices
Application of Fees for Indigenous Park Users
Caravan/Large Group Reservation Management
Drafting of Legal Land Descriptions
Licensing Fees Concessionaires
Management Planning Programs
Off Road Vehicle Information Request
Parks Agencies with an App
Parks Maintenance Budgets
Parks Recreational and Disposition Fees **
Photo Contests
Provincial Advisory Board or Committee 
Special Event Policy
Overall Response Rate: 31%
Scan with Highest Response Rate: Provincial Advisory Board or Committee /Annual Revenue Forecasting
Responded Most Often: Saskatchewan Parks at 54% Response Rate
Ontario Parks at 50% Response Rate
Newfoundland and Labrador Parks at 45% Response Rate
Responded Least Often: Government of the Northwest Territories at 0% Response Rate
Parks New Brunswick at 8% Response Rate
Yukon Parks at 15% Response Rate
   
   

*Jurisdictional Response Rate Score is calculated based on # of times responded/(total # of scan requests – # inquiries from that jurisdiction). 

2019 Provincial Park Advisory Boards

2019 Jurisdictional Scan: Provincial Park Advisory Boards
Does your jurisdiction have an advisory board or panel that provides regular advice to the Minister or senior management?
JURISDICTIONREPLIEDYES/NOCONTACT NAME
B.C PARKSNON/A
COMMENTS: BC Parks Elders Committee (this is not an Indigenous Elders Committee; I would characterize it as an advocacy group made up of former executives, academics and other leaders who periodically offer advice to the Minster and executives)
ALBERTA PARKSNOScott Jones
COMMENTS: AB Parks – the 2009-2019 Strategic Plan called for an advisory committee, but one was not struck. Interest remains to move in this direction
SASKATCHEWAN PARKSNOBruce McCannel
COMMENTS: No we don’t have an advisory board or panel setup for the system. We do have park advisory groups for some individual parks but nothing system wide.
MANITOBA PARKSNOKelly-Anne Richmond
COMMENTS: In Parks we have two boards but neither provides general parks advice: The Whiteshell Advisory Board which is established under The Provincial Parks Act, serves for Whiteshell Provincial Park only, as a variance committee when a provincial park cottager formally requests a variance (usually dealing with size and locations of buildings or other development) to normal policies and guidelines and as a review panel when a provincial park cottager wishes to have the department reconsider its interpretation and application of existing policies and guidelines relative to a decision made by the department. The committee reviews applications from provincial park cottagers respecting these types of issues and conducts public hearings in order to hear from both applicants and those who may be in support of the application or opposed to it. Board members make recommendations on these issues to the Minister. The board may meet from once to up to ten times per year as necessary based upon frequency of applications received.The Endangered Species, Ecosystems, and Ecological Reserves Advisory Committee provides science advice respecting two acts.As per The Endangered Species and Ecosystems Act, the role of the advisory committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the minister with respect to (a) species that are endangered, threatened, extirpated or that are of special concern; and (b) ecosystems that are endangered or threatened.As per The Ecological Reserves Act, the role of the advisory committee is to (a) examine areas for their suitability as reserves and make recommendations thereon to the minister; (b) receive and considers submissions from the public and make recommendations to the minister thereon; (c) provide to the public, the government, and government agencies information with respect to reserves, ecology, and ecological features within Manitoba; and (d) advise the minister generally with respect to the administration of The Ecological Reserves Act. This is a new committee that has not met yet (it is an amalgamation of two previous committees). It is anticipated it will meet 3 or 4 times per year. Our department’s boards, agencies, and commissions are summarized here: https://www.gov.mb.ca/government/abc/sd.html
ONTARIO PARKSYESN/A
COMMENTS: ON Parks Board https://www.ontarioparks.com/board
SEPAQ (QUEBEC)YESN/A
COMMENTS: Sépaq has a permanent board appointed by gov’t and meets every 6-8 weeks (Sépaq CEO sits on the board)
NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR PARKSNON/A
COMMENTS: NL Parks does not have its own advisory committee, but there is a wilderness and ecological reserves council that provides advice to the Minister 2-4 times per year.
NOVA SCOTIA PARKSX  
PARKS NEW BRUNSWICKNON/A
COMMENTS: NB Parks Public Planning Committee AND a separate First Nations Advisory Committee (ToRs attached)
P.E.I PARKSNON/A
COMMENTS: PEI Parks – no formal board/committee
GOVERNMENT OF NORTHWEST TERRITORIES PARKSX  
NUNAVUT PARKSX  
YUKON PARKSX  
PARKS CANADAX  

Response Rate: 9/13 for 69%

Key Findings:

  • Although most jurisdictions do not have a permanent, official board that gives regular and general advice to the Minister and senior management, most jurisdictions have a number of committees or panels on specific issues that provide advice and feedback.
  • Alberta is interested in the creation of an advisory board
  • In Newfoundland & Labrador there is an ecological council that provides advice to the Minister, but it is not related to parks.
  • Sépaq has a permanent board appointed by gov’t and meets every 6-8 week and the CEO of Sépaq sits on the board.

Future Questions to Ask:

  • Is it more effective to have advisory panels for individual parks or topics than to have one larger board for the entire jurisdiction? Would there be value in having both?
  • What has Sépaq accomplished through their board? How efficient do they find their structure? Is this a structure that could be modelled in other jurisdictions looking to create advisory panels?

Links to Resources:

2019 Management Plans Programs

2019 Jurisdictional Scan: Management Plans Programs
How are management plans created in your jurisdiction?
JURISDICTIONREPLIEDYES/NOCONTACT NAME
B.C PARKSInquiring Jurisdiction Jaime Hilbert
Original Email: Hi, I am looking for contact information for the best person in your agency to provide me with some Management Planning Program Information. The information is being compiled to help us in an internal review of our own management plan program. I have fairly specific questions around: – Staffing for management plans in your province/territory (who completes management plans, is it their only job? How are they distributed geographically?) – Management Plan process and Timeline (how long does it take from start to finish on average and are plans taking longer than they used to?) – Public and Indigenous involvement in management planning processes (level of involvement, when, where and how they are involved; how has this changed over the past 5-10 years) – What policy or legislation is driving the completion of management plans? (do you have a policy mandating the completion of management plans for all areas? If not, – Management Planning Products (are you currently only doing “full” management plans, or do you have a scale with a range of products depending on the area/issues?) – How many management plans have you had approved in the past 10 years? How many drag plans? If you could pass on the contact details for the Planner or other staff person who may be best able to assist it would be greatly appreciated. I am looking to compile this information in a fairly short timeline over the next 2-3 weeks.
ALBERTA PARKSX  
SASKATCHEWAN PARKSX  
MANITOBA PARKSX  
ONTARIO PARKSX  
SEPAQ (QUEBEC) N/A
COMMENTS: How many protected areas are in your system (and type of PA if it matters or you have more than one type)?  The ministère de l’Environnement et de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques is responsible for the protected area registry. Information on protected areas can be found on its website (French only) : http://www.environnement.gouv.qc.ca/biodiversite/aires_protegees/registre/index.htm#classification The registry recognizes 30 types of protected areas. National park is one of them. 4 777 natural sites are included in this registry. These sites are managed by various departments. The ministère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs (MFFP) is responsable, amongst other things, for the 27 Québec national parks. The following answers only concern the Québec National Parks network.   Do you have a range of management planning products or only one product type (i.e., only “full” management plans, or do you have a scale with a range of products depending on the area/issues?)? The MFFP produces a management plan (called master plan) for each park. The park operators, the Société de plein air du Québec (Sépaq) and the Kativik Regional Government(ARK), produce other planning products : Conservation planEducation planBusiness plan   How many of these areas have management plans? Are all of these “full” MPs? Does each of the plans cover one area? 12 of the 27 national parks have a master plan. The others have a provisional master plan, which were drafted prior to the creation of the national park.   How many draft management plans have been released to the public in the past 10 years (2009-2018)? 3 provisional master plan have been released to the public in the past 10 years.   How many management planning projects are currently in-progress?  8 master plans are in-progress.   How many collaborative/co-signed management plans with Indigenous communities do you have? The master plans for the 4 national parks located in Nunavik were written in close collaboration with the Kativik Regional Government, whose employees working for the parks are mostly Indigenous. The park directors of the parks in Nunavik are all Inuit. Also, the provisional master plans for the 2 national parks projects situated on Cree territories are being written in collaboration with the Cree communities concerned by the projects.   Who in your agency approves your management plans ? The associate deputy minister   What does the staffing for management plans look like (who completes management plans, is it their only job? How many people? How are they distributed geographically? % of time spent on MPs)? There is one main writer for most of the master plans. He spends 50% of his time on writing master plans. This person works closely with the project leaders within the department who are in charge of the follow-up of the parks. These project leaders are in charge of writing the provisional master plans for national park projects. The whole team is based in Québec City. These people work also very closely with each park director and park staff, from Sépaq or KRG.   How are areas without Management Plans managed? How are permit decisions made? Are major developments or new uses permitted? All national parks have a provisional master plan or a master plan. One or the other is used by the park administration. Sépaq and KRG do not need a permit for developments implemented in national parks. The Loi sur les parcs provides the necessary permissions. However, they must respect the Policy for Québec national parks, the master plan and the zoning plan.   How long does a management plan process take from start to finish on average (I know this has many variables but maybe a few examples or an approx. timeframe that recent plans have taken)? Over the past 10 years have you found that management plans are taking longer to complete?   Québec just adopted a new National Parks Policy. This new policy sets the basic general rules for park management. Based on this policy, the management plans will be updated. Québec just started the revision process. The update process is expected to take up to 2 or 3 years for each management plan, but several master plans will be updated simultaneously. The objective is to have 14 reviewed master plans published before the end of 2023.   What is the usual level and method of public and Indigenous involvement in management planning processes and how has this changed over the past 10 years? Each park’s harmonisation committee is invited to comment on the management plan. Depending on their location, some of these committees have Indigenous members. All Indigenous communities and organizations in Quebec were consulted on the new Policy for Quebec national parks, which dictates the orientations found within the master plans.   Do you have policy or legislation or other direction requiring the completion of management plans for some or all areas? The new National Parks Policy recommends that every 10 years the department assesses the relevance to review the master plan.   How are priorities set for the completion of management plans? How do you decide which ones to tackle first? The parks that have been created or expanded recently are tackled first.   Have you made any significant changes to the format or process for Management Plans over the past 10 years? The management plan timetable has been simplified. It is also greatly inspired by what is found in the new National Parks Policy.
NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR PARKSX  
NOVA SCOTIA PARKSX  
PARKS NEW BRUNSWICKX  
P.E.I PARKSX  
GOVERNMENT OF NORTHWEST TERRITORIES PARKSX  
NUNAVUT PARKSX  
YUKON PARKSX  
PARKS CANADAX  

Response Rate: 1/13 for 8%

Key Findings:

  • Too few responses to make provide general insights, Sépaq’s provides good insight into their jurisdiction

Future Questions to Ask:

  • Revisit the question at a later date in a more concise format to capture more responses

Links to Resources:

  • None

2019 Caravan/Large Group Reservation Management

2019 Jurisdictional Scan: Caravan/Large Group Reservation Management
Does your current reservation system accommodate caravan groups requesting multiple adjacent campsites?
JURISDICTIONREPLIEDYES/NOCONTACT NAME
B.C PARKSX  
ALBERTA PARKSX  
SASKATCHEWAN PARKSYesN/A
COMMENTS: PDF attached below Group camping is available, whether you have to call to reserve or can do so online is unclear
MANITOBA PARKSYesRob Nedotiafko Rob.Nedotiafko@gov.mb.ca  
COMMENTS: Hi Sian, We do allow caravan groups to book outside of the reservation system, providing that they are using a significant number of campsites and are not booking during a prime period (such as a long weekend). They all pay reservation fees for each site. We handle these types of reservations directly through our head office. I’ve attached some notes from our reservation service policy that outlines a few other points for consideration. Feel free to email or call if you’d like to discuss.
ONTARIO PARKSX  
SEPAQ (QUEBEC)X  
NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR PARKSInquiring Jurisdiction Sian French sianfrench@gov.nl.ca
COMMENTS: Wondering if and how you accommodate caravan groups requesting multiple adjacent campsites (~20-30)? Does your reserva:on system support this? Do they pay the reservation fee for each site? Or do you allow them to book outside of your reservation system and block sec:ons of campgrounds? We’re received complaints from large caravan groups that our current system is not user friendly for them and we’re interested in exploring op:ons for the 2020 season.
NOVA SCOTIA PARKSX  
PARKS NEW BRUNSWICKX  
P.E.I PARKSX  
GOVERNMENT OF NORTHWEST TERRITORIES PARKSX  
NUNAVUT PARKSYesStephanie McCabe
COMMENTS: In some of our parks we have the ability to accommodate 10 – 20 RV’s in our group camping sites. Group camping is essentially a large open space, separate from the individual camping sites. There are outhouses available, and power hookups in most cases. We are also looking at adding a shower house to one of our group camping spots. Group camping can only be reserved through the operator or through our regional staff and is not reservable through our online system. They pay a flat rate that equates to the cost of 4 RV’s per night and an additional fee for every additional RV. Group camping is shown in the booking system but it will direct the user to information on who to contact for booking it.   We have been lucky in that we haven’t received complaints about caravans larger than what we have capacity for. For those campgrounds that don’t have group camping, our operators usually try to accommodate them as best as they can, it can get difficult when it’s last minute. If they are notified of a large group coming in, they will reserve or block a section of sites.
YUKON PARKSX  
PARKS CANADAX  

Response Rate: 3/13 for 23%

Key Findings:

  • The responding jurisdictions have limited availability for group camping, accommodating on average groups of about 10-20. These reservations generally need to be made by calling the park in question.

Future Questions to Ask:

  • Revisit the question of ability to accommodate large group camping in the future to capture more responses

Links to Resources:

2019 Alcohol in Day Use

2019 Jurisdictional Scan: Alcohol Practices
Do you permit the use of alcohol in day use areas in parks?
JURISDICTIONREPLIEDYES/NOCONTACT NAME
B.C PARKSNOBob Austad
COMMENTS: Under what legislative authority is this permitted? E.g. Parks Act? Gaming and Liquor Act, Ministerial Order, Permit, signage? If permitted it would be under the Liquor Control and Licensing Act as a special permit, but except by exception (very rare) we don’t approve in day use areas. Are there different types of permits available? E.g., would this be allowed under a special event permit, vs all day-users? No If your jurisdiction doesn’t allow liquor consumption in day-use areas, have you considered this change in the past? What lead you to this? Discussed but never put forward to Deputy or Minister. We still perceive the downside to be to great in taking on liability and having control beyond what we currently have to deal with in registered campsites and group campsites, where liquor can be consumed Did you consult with the public or stakeholder? n/a What were the impacts, if you did make this change? n/a Other comments? We feel consumption in a campsite or group campsite is enough of an public opportunity. Having to then put more resources and C&E staff into day use areas to monitor and manage would be more expensive and we are sure our park related occurrences would dramatically increase if liquor was permitted in day use areas.
ALBERTA PARKSInquiring JurisdictionNOCaroline Crell
COMMENTS: Under what legislative authority is this permitted? E.g. Parks Act? Gaming and Liquor Act, Ministerial Order, Permit, signage? Could be permitted under the Gaming, Liquor and Cannabis Act – owners of parks can designate public picnic sites where alcohol may be consumed with food Are there different types of permits available? E.g., would this be allowed under a special event permit, vs all day-users? Special events permits can be issued where serving and consumption is authorized through a liquor licence – however, these are rarely issued. If your jurisdiction doesn’t allow liquor consumption in day-use areas, have you considered this change in the past? What lead you to this?Did you consult with the public or stakeholder?What were the impacts, if you did make this change?Other comments? Alberta has been utilizing temporary liquor bans (since 2004) at select sites (up to 10 locations, vary by year) for the May long weekend. Cannabis use is permitted within registered campsites and in public areas where tobacco is permitted (e.g. 5 meters of washrooms, playgrounds, sports or playing fields, outdoor pools, etc.).
SASKATCHEWAN PARKSNOBruce McCannel
COMMENTS: Under what legislative authority is this permitted? E.g. Parks Act? Gaming and Liquor Act, Ministerial Order, Permit, signage? The Alcohol and Gaming Regulations Act (s. 106(1)) generally permits alcohol in a private place, which would include a trailer, campsite, cottage, rental accommodation, etc. and appurtenant landThe Parks Act (Saskatchewan), allows enforcement and eviction pursuant to The Alcohol and Gaming Regulations ActThe Parks Regulations, 1991 establishes a permittee’s private right to use of a campsite; andSection 107.1 of The Alcohol and Gaming Regulation Act allows the Minister of Parks, Culture and Sport to impose an alcohol ban in a campground Are there different types of permits available? E.g., would this be allowed under a special event permit, vs all day-users? Yes, alcohol may be considered as part of a special use permit, and would also require a liquor license.Alcohol and cannabis are not permitted in day-use areas. However, where there is a special event (e.g. wedding, festival) a permittee may serve alcohol if they obtain a liquor license, and under any special conditions stipulated by the park (e.g. quiet times, closing time, etc.). If your jurisdiction doesn’t allow liquor consumption in day-use areas, have you considered this change in the past? What lead you to this? Unsure Did you consult with the public or stakeholder? N/A since alcohol use is generally defined in The Alcohol and Gaming Regulations Act. What were the impacts, if you did make this change?Other comments? The only recent changes, respecting alcohol, was the adoption of the May long weekend alcohol ban, in 1995. It was seen as extremely helpful in curbing the high levels of vandalism and hooliganism that were occurring in the parks at that time, and helping to make the campgrounds more family friendly.Alcohol is generally allowed in private areas such as campsites, cottages, rental accommodations, and privately licensed areas as well as the outside area connected to those spaces (e.g. the campsite). With new cannabis laws, cannabis is generally permitted in the same circumstances as alcohol.The one primary exception is our May long-weekend alcohol ban (which now includes cannabis). The ban prohibits alcohol and cannabis from campgrounds on the May long weekend. The ban does not apply to private cottages, licensed establishments and rental accommodations.
MANITOBA PARKSNOElisabeth Ostrop
COMMENTS: Under what legislative authority is this permitted? E.g. Parks Act? Gaming and Liquor Act, Ministerial Order, Permit, signage? We do not typically allow alcohol in regular day-use areas (only on a campsite).Section 10 of our Park Activities Regulation deals with the possession and consumption of liquor in provincial parks.http://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/regs/current/_pdf-regs.php?reg=141/96 In it we also reference the Liquor Control Act, which is used to provide the guiding principles. In a nutshell – Liquor is prohibited in public places unless permitted. A campsite isn’t considered a public place, as it is rented space, so we allow people to drink on their campsite (unless another prohibition is in place).Our reg. also allows us to prohibit alcohol in specific places by giving people notice. This is important in cases where there may be variability. We use signage, brochures and web information to “notify” the public with respect to the rules in our camping and group-use facilities. Are there different types of permits available? E.g., would this be allowed under a special event permit, vs all day-users? For any event that includes alcohol we require people to fill out a Special Event Permit application.  Info on our Special Events permit can be found here: (https://www.gov.mb.ca/sd/parks/park-facilities-and-services/special-parks/index.html )   We use the application as the base for the permit and attach special conditions.  I have also attached a sample of some special conditions. If someone has booked a group-use area for day-use or for overnight use, the alcohol prohibition varies from location to location.  We have a chart in our group use brochure that outlines if alcohol is prohibited or not. https://www.gov.mb.ca/sd/pubs/parks-protected-spaces/group_use.pdf     weddings, if someone wants to book a group use area for their reception, and we do not allow alcohol in that group use area, they would not be allowed to serve alcohol in that area, not even with a special events permit.  If they book a group-use area where alcohol isn’t prohibited, they would get a special events permit and a liquor permit.many open spaces and picnic areas that aren’t part of an official group-use area.  Open Liquor is typically banned in these spaces, unless we authorize it under a Special Event permit or other type of formal agreement.  Under a special event permit we can set conditions as to when they have to stop serving and when they have to shut things down (this usually coincides with our quiet hours – 11pm), and whether or not we would require them to provide their own security. Usually they have to set up a self-contained beer garden.  They have to apply for a permit under Manitoba Liquor and Lotteries who will set the parameters regarding capacity, number of toilets stalls required, conditions for the beer garden etc. and Manitoba Liquor then confirms with us prior to issuing the Liquor permit.  The liquor inspector may also show up to monitor the event.   Each event is evaluated on a case by case basis, as there is some judgement as to whether or not things have the potential to get out of hand, how would the event impact the neighbours (are their cottages/campgrounds nearby?), etc.  I would suggest we typically proceed with caution when evaluating events as we do not want to set a precedent. We also require the event organizer to take on additional responsibility when it comes to the provision of security.  We have far fewer officers than we did in the 80s and 90s and other policing resources like the RCMP also have a reduced presence in many parts of the province. The corporate memory from those days has not yet completely retired from our system.” If your jurisdiction doesn’t allow liquor consumption in day-use areas, have you considered this change in the past? What lead you to this?Did you consult with the public or stakeholder? I would suggest that public consultation wasn’t considered at the time certain prohibitions came into place, rather the approach was reactive and based on experience in trying to deal with situations that were problematic. From what I understand alcohol related rowdyism was a huge problem in the 1980s and 90s, and this was impacting the experience for other park users. The charges laid by officers were high and a case was made to prohibit alcohol on the May long weekend. A liquor ban was put into effect, and May long weekend became family friendly. Subsequently, each year we would get a few complaints that found a liquor ban on May long weekend was too restrictive, especially for people who were going to drink responsibly. Last year a decision was made to lift the ban and we have our fingers crossed that things won’t get to crazy this year, now that people know. When we used to have the May long weekend liquor ban, we issued a news release, displayed signs at all our campgrounds and gave them a handout at check-in, letting people know that alcohol is prohibited that weekend. What were the impacts, if you did make this change?Other comments? We have a couple of camping bays in two of our parks that are Liquor free all season. We have signs posted at these camping bays, and a pop up appears on our reservation service. We promote them as family friendly bays, but they were specifically chosen because our enforcement staff consistently had problems with rowdy camper’s in these bays that had developed reputations for becoming party places. Now they are usually the last sites to be booked, but they are no longer having to evict rowdy campers from these bays.
ONTARIO PARKSNOJason Anderson
COMMENTS: Under what legislative authority is this permitted? E.g. Parks Act? Gaming and Liquor Act, Ministerial Order, Permit, signage? In the context of Ontario’s provincial parks, a campsite is considered a residence, and therefore park patrons may possess an open container of liquor and consume liquor on the campsite. Open containers of liquor, or consuming liquor is prohibited in all other areas of provincial park – for example, beaches, roads, trails, and day use areas. In Ontario, the Liquor Licence Act prohibits consumption or possession of an open container of liquor in any place other than a residence, licenced premises, or private place. Additionally, there are approximately 40 provincial parks that prohibit the possession and consumption of liquor for the Victoria Day weekend and the ten days preceding Victoria Day. This is achieved by a regulation under the Liquor Licence Act. Are there different types of permits available? E.g., would this be allowed under a special event permit, vs all day-users?If your jurisdiction doesn’t allow liquor consumption in day-use areas, have you considered this change in the past? What lead you to this?Did you consult with the public or stakeholder?What were the impacts, if you did make this changeOther comments? Recently the Ontario government announced an intention to explore revisions to the Liquor Licence Act to enable municipalities to permit consumption of alcohol in municipal parks. The revisions are not intended to apply in provincial parks.  
SEPAQ (QUEBEC)YESMylene Pronovost
COMMENTS: Under what legislative authority is this permitted? E.g. Parks Act? Gaming and Liquor Act, Ministerial Order, Permit, signage? Under “Régie de l’alcool, des courses et des jeux”, the ministry organization that issues alcohol permit in the province. For more information : https://www.racj.gouv.qc.ca/en/a-propos-de-la-regie/laws-and-regulations.html Are there different types of permits available? E.g., would this be allowed under a special event permit, vs all day-users? Yes, depending on needs, there is different permits. For example, if we organize a special activity for one day, we can ask for this type of permit (allowed for a specific date), but generally, we have “sport event” permit. It is the same kind of permit arenas have : we sell alcohol for on-site drinking in a few of our Visitor Centers (with terasse, most of the time, of for Visitor Centers who provided food services).  
NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR PARKSX  
NOVA SCOTIA PARKSX  
PARKS NEW BRUNSWICKX  
P.E.I PARKSNOShane Arbing
COMMENTS: Under what legislative authority is this permitted? E.g. Parks Act? Gaming and Liquor Act, Ministerial Order, Permit, signage? On PEI, alcohol consumption is not permitted in day use area. This is policy adopted by Parks and signs are in place indicating this. We are actually updating signs to include cannabis use well. We do have two exceptions: We have two food service providers located in two beach day parks which we have given permission to obtain a liquor licence (fancy beach canteens with a separate seating areas where beer/alcohol has to be consumed in.). Permission is outlined in their license agreement. It is their responsibility to apply for and secure the license from the Province. This arrange has been in place for 6-7years with no issue. We do allow alcohol by special permit in one particular park which has a multi-purpose event center. In this case, the event operator must have secure a liquor license. Are there different types of permits available? E.g., would this be allowed under a special event permit, vs all day-users? See above If your jurisdiction doesn’t allow liquor consumption in day-use areas, have you considered this change in the past? What lead you to this? No Did you consult with the public or stakeholder? What were the impacts, if you did make this change? Other comments?
GOVERNMENT OF NORTHWEST TERRITORIES PARKSX  
NUNAVUT PARKSX  
YUKON PARKSX  
PARKS CANADANOMichael Nadler
COMMENTS: Under what legislative authority is this permitted? E.g. Parks Act? Gaming and Liquor Act, Ministerial Order, Permit, signage? We manage under the authorities in the Canada National Parks Act and permissions are granted at the site level by superintendents. We post signage. Are there different types of permits available? E.g., would this be allowed under a special event permit, vs all day-users? Yes, we can allow the consumption of alcohol at special events through a permit. This is normally within a building or a contained area. For example, for a wedding. If your jurisdiction doesn’t allow liquor consumption in day-use areas, have you considered this change in the past? What lead you to this? We simply follow provincial and territorial laws. Did you consult with the public or stakeholder? There may have been public consultations many years ago, but there have not been recently. We did not go to public consultation on Cannabis. We simply follow provincial and territorial laws. What were the impacts, if you did make this change? Other comments? Under superintendent’s orders, we prohibit alcohol consumption at a number of campgrounds across the country on busy weekends. We may do the same for Cannabis. We do this to mitigate the risk of conflict between campers due to noise or other activities.

Response Rate: 7/13 for 54%

Key Findings:

  • Responding jurisdictions, other than Sepaq, do not generally allow alcohol in their day use areas.
  • Most jurisdictions simply abide by the larger provincial mandates on alcohol usage in public spaces
  • Some jurisdictions prohibit the use of alcohol on busy weekends even in campsites to avoid conflict.

Future Questions to Ask:

  • Has the alcohol ban in campsites on major weekends been effective in mitigating conflict?

Links to Resources:

2019 Park Maintenance Budgets

2019 Jurisdictional Scan: Park Maintenance Budgets
Does your jurisdiction have any decision-making tools or advice for effectively estimating annual maintenance budgets for park systems?
JURISDICTIONREPLIEDYES/NOCONTACT NAME
B.C PARKSX  
ALBERTA PARKSYESHiju Song
COMMENTS: I am sure you are aware that most maintenance programs should have varied strategic methodologies/approaches. To any maintenance program requires an understanding of the activities, optimal usage and type of assets within the organization. Alberta Parks has 472 separate land bases in eight classes. To manage this we use a combination of the 4 maintenance/funding strategies to deal with the varied categories/types of assets within the Parks in our capital and maintenance renewal program. Routine Maintenance (RM): These activities are daily/weekly/monthly/seasonal functions that must be performed. Depending on the usage and service delivery level for an asset, its usually 10-30% of the operational budget. Alberta Parks uses operational funding for routine maintenance. Each of the 5 regions sets these targets based on their operational budget level, Park assets, usage and levels of service desired, etc..Time-based Maintenance (TbM): These activities are usually set at a fixed interval or seasonal depending on the asset. Alberta Parks has established a budget category called the Life Cycle Maintenance LCM). Approximately 25-30% of the Capital Budget is set aside for LCM and equipment replacement/purchases.Condition-based Maintenance (CbM): These activities are determined by the type/condition of the asset and usually can be quantified/qualified by its phase of life. These are usually larger than LCM projects to improve the longevity of the asset by either refurbishing it, enhancing it or replacing it with new. For example, renovation and enlargement of shower building, campground loop refurbishment, trail replacement, program to replace vault toilets in a region over 5 years, program to replace primary/secondary roads in a region, electrify and wifi a campground, etc. Alberta Parks has established a scoring matrix to determine what projects get approved and when it gets completed. Each year all 5 regions submit a list of projects and the CMR committee scores/ranks them. Based on the capital budget a list of approved projects are set. We have a rolling 5 year project list that we establish at least 2-3 years in advance and make adjustments if required 3 months prior to fiscal start.Capital Replacement Investments: Assets that require large scale investment, such as completely retrofitting a building or improving/establishing a park we submit a separate capital investment ask, such as Canmore Nordic Centre for $30m and William Watson Lodge for $10m; Lower Athabasca Regional Plan implementation for $5m for 5 years, South Saskatchewan River Plan implementation for $10 for 5 years and Castle Provincial Park implementation for $2m for 5 years.   Alberta Parks budget is made up of two types of funding – Operational Budget (01 funding) and Capital Budget (05 funding). The TbM and CbM come from the Capital budget and we call it Capital Maintenance and Renewal (CMR). Alberta Treasury Board sets the capital budget and in the past 10 years its been anywhere from $2m to $30m. As far as I can see it’s not based on any formula or industry best practice of setting 2-3% of replacement asset value. As in other jurisdictions, a large percentage of deferred maintenance that needs to be addressed immediately and we have a number of initiatives to re-strategize our approach to maintaining our parks.
SASKATCHEWAN PARKSNOBruce McCannel
COMMENTS: After some discussion with our Infrastructure and Capital Planning Branch we don’t have much to offer in terms of decision-making tools or formulas. Our annual capital budget is $9.5M for capital projects and $1.6M specifically for preventive maintenance expenses. The majority of our capital project funding is allocated to infrastructure renewal each year (80+ percent) with the remaining funds allocated for expansion and growth opportunities. Our annual funding puts us on the low end of the 2-4 percent replacement value that is typically recommended.
MANITOBA PARKSX  
ONTARIO PARKSSOMEWHATDoug Barrett
COMMENTS: Well you would think it would be that simple. I have spoken with our Operation’s Specialists and Managers of Park Operations in the Park Zone offices at different times. They do not have a formula or set procedure for Allocating funding specifically for maintenance to each park but I sent out the question to them just in case. One response came back from the Zone that others say pretty much sums it all up…   We do not have a set % or $ value that we use. Pessimistically speaking, our plant is not in good enough condition to (successfully) use a predictive/formulaic allocation model; we are compelled to make prioritization decisions in conjunction with the parks. Nor can we know/understand current conditions at the park level down to that fine a detail. We generally ask for prioritized lists from the parks that represent as deep a list of needs/wants as they can provide at the time of the ask (it is not unusual that the total ask across the zone is 7 to 8 M). In determining actual allocations; we consider a hierarchy of needs and allocate on that basis. The hierarchy always starts with immediate/immanent threats to human health and safety and flows down from there, terminating (usually) in new equipment acquisitions. This can/has result(ed) in individual parks getting no cap expense allocation in a given year. To be clear though; because of the scope of issues that arise; there is a great deal of discussion and decision making throughout the fiscal year. Consistency may not be optically evident year over year. Until recently, we have allocated an amount to each cluster based on the number of operating parks for “health and safety” related costs. This amounted to a quasi- discretionary spending amount allowing the parks to respond to emergencies and breakdowns independently. There was no formula for that amount; it was based on current allocations, pressures and to some degree historical norms. The value shrank in accordance with the zone allocation; this fiscal that amount was zero. Depending on the size of the zone allocation; I may also choose to send nothing out to the park level, instead, holding the full allocation at the zone and responding to unexpected breakdowns, emergencies and pressures as they arise. The remainder (if any) allocated out after the close of the operating season. Not very scientific but does permit us to be flexible and appropriately reactive.   All of the Managers do the best they can with limited Capital Expense funding (see Capital Allocations attachment). Our overall Capital Expense is almost $6.0M and the amount is divided up for the Zone Capital Expense projects. Most of that allocation is for renewal/replacement of various Assets under Capital Expense projects. Most of that allocation is for renewal/replacement of various Assets under the $90.0K threshold… as anything over that is considered Tangible Capital Assets and funded out of the TCA pot.   The Capital Allocations spreadsheet depicts the high level formula for splitting the remaining portion of CapEx ($3.234M) between the Zones after the portion of the allocation ($2.732M) is removed for special projects etc.Using our Visitation Stat’s for each Zone (Day-Use, Camper Nights and Interior Camper Nights) and taking a 3yr average we’ve determined the % of Visitation for each Zone and this is applied to 30% of the allocation available.Then using the Long Term Infrastructure Plan (LTIP) data Stat’s we come up with the % of Assets for each Zone and this is applied to 70% of the allocation available.The two $ amounts are added to create the Zone Allocation Total and represents approximately 15% of the total Capital Allocation (CapEx and CapAsset).   When we look at the broad picture:   The total estimate for Assets is $1.47B with an Annual Maintenance Cost (Industry Standard) at 3% of the Asset Value that would equate to $44.2M.But out of the $1.47B there is approximately $588.2M of the Assets in Defective or Very Poor Condition and these require renewal.In between these two (New Assets and those in Defective or Very Poor Condition) are approximately $586M worth of the Assets which are:C: Fair Condition: Functioning as intended; normal deterioration and minor distress observed; maintenance will be required within the next five years to maintain functionality.D: Poor Condition: Not functioning as intended; significant deterioration and distress observed; maintenance and some repair required within the next year to restore functionality.Therefore at 3% what we actually require is approximately $17.9M in funding just for maintenance and repairs alone.   What is noticeable is that the current $5.97M of CAPEX allocation is used for renewal and replacement as well as for maintenance and repair of the minor Tangible Capital items so this small pot is further divided for uses other than just repair and maintenance. Therefore you might surmise that if, based on the Asset value, we require $17.9M just to maintain and repair Assets and our allocation is actually $5.97M there is already a funding gap of almost $12.0M every year. Again if half of the $5.97 is used for renewal/replacement of the existing minor Assets then the gap is more like $15M below what it should be each fiscal… just to maintain and repair items before they get to the state where a major Betterment or an entire Renewal of the Asset is required.   When I apply $17.9M to the equation and subtract the $2.7M, already allocated, the figures change drastically (see below) and the Zone Allocation Total represents approx. 46.3% of the total Capital Allocation (CapEx and CapAsset).   Operational Funding: Then we get into the Operational Funding or Other Direct Operating Expenses (ODOE). Most of that funding per park has been provided from Historical allocations and if there are increases required to the allocations, of specific aspects of the funding, then Business Cases (BC’s) are prepared and submitted to explain the increase and why it’s required for Other Direct Operating Expenses (ODOE) on a park by park basis.   And Finally it’s one thing to have such a large pot of money and quite another to put it to good use with the staffing levels. Increasing the funding available also requires increasing FTE’s to deal with the additional load for resources, procurement, etc.
SEPAQ (QUEBEC)X  
NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR PARKSNOGeoff Bailey
COMMENTS: Our Government recently implemented a Zero Based Budgeting approach for all Departments and Divisions. Each Division has to identify all anticipated expenditures for the upcoming fiscal year based on the previous year’s budgetary allotment and justify those expenditures. I review all previous year expenditures and identify areas for savings, continued expenditures and possible areas for reallocation of funds. Any projects not identified in the submission require Treasury Board Approval before the funds can be spent. We currently have no capital investment budget so we are sticking mainly to maintenance. We prioritize work based on input from our field staff and from the public (outside of staffed camping parks). Any large maintenance jobs are sent for my approval since our staff only have approvals to expend up to $500 at one time. I prioritize work based on available funds from our Zero Based Budget submission, pressing need or whether it represents a public safety/staff safety risk. We don’t have a formal asset management tool that we use for planning.
NOVA SCOTIA PARKSNOMatt Parker
COMMENTS: For NS we are given a budget to work with, and always have more projects then what can be done. So, what we do is try to prioritize our annual maintenance projects based on, does it affect visitor experience, has it failed, is its critical infrastructure, etc. We also do a cost estimate for each project and then try to get as many of the highest priority items done each year.   We keep a running spreadsheet of all projects and if we get extra money or a project cost less, we go back to this spreadsheet and pick the next project with the highest priority and fits the budget. We also use this money to try and get more money.   FYI our infrastructure maintenance budget is approximately $350,000 and our capital improvement (larger projects) is $1.0 million annual.   This is spread across 20 camping parks and 110 day use parks. We estimate our maintenance backlog is at least $60 million.
PARKS NEW BRUNSWICKX  
P.E.I PARKSX  
GOVERNMENT OF NORTHWEST TERRITORIES PARKSInquiring Jurisdiction Evan Walz
COMMENTS: NWT Parks is reviewing maintenance funding levels for all parks in their system. The goal is to ensure adequate budgets are available to properly maintain and protect infrastructure investments.   The NWT would like input from other jurisdictions on maintenance funding levels and whether or not a formula or funding model is used to establish parks maintenance budgets. The information gathered may be used to help establish something similar in the NWT. It is important to recognize the scope of this exercise, and more importantly, of the NWT Parks System: The NWT Parks System is used seasonally from May to October, has approximately 245 assets in 33 parks across the Territory, with a total value of $45 million.   If CPC directors are able to assist with the collection of this informaNon, they, or their relevant staff, are asked to contact Evan Walz, Director of Tourism and Parks, their relevant staff, are asked to contact Evan Walz, Director of Tourism and Parks, Government of the NWT at evan_walz@gov.nt.ca. NWT Parks Managers will follow up directly.
NUNAVUT PARKSX  
YUKON PARKSX  
PARKS CANADA Davina Brown
COMMENTS: High level maintenance budgets may be estimated by converting an asset’s useful life into an annual reinvestment rate. The annual maintenance and repair (M&R) reinvestment rate is determined by dividing one (1) by the useful life.   For a building with a uselife of 50 years, 1/50 (or 2%) of the total asset value should be budgeted each year (on average) for M&R. Useful lives for other asset types are noted at the bottom of this email   The 2% annual maintenance reinvestment rate for a building is an average. For a new asset, the annual investment in M&R will be lower than 2% / year however as the assets age, the rate is typically higher.   The annual capital reinvestment rate roughly equals the annual maintenance reinvestment rate for an asset.    Some definitions/explanations that may be useful.   Useful Life is the estimate of the period over which an Asset is expected to be used. It should take into consideration factors such as expected future usage, effects of technological obsolescence, expected wear and tear from use or the passage of time, the Maintenance and Repair program, studies of similar items retired, and the condition of existing comparable items. An Asset’s Useful Life is reached through required Maintenance and Repairs.An Asset’s Useful Life is extended through Capital interventions (Renewals).For contemporary Assets, a number of Renewal interventions may take place, such that an Asset constructed to last, say 50 years, lasts 150+ years. At some point however, it will reach the end of its Useful Life when the Asset is determined not to be fit for its intended purpose (e.g. obsolescence). At that point, assuming it has not been categorized as heritage, the Asset is either Replaced, Divested or Demolished. A new Useful Life is generated for an Asset that has been Replaced.For heritage Assets, the goal is to extend the Asset’s Useful Life for as long as possible through Capital interventions (Renewals).   Maintenance and Repair expenditures are incurred through actual work performed against an Asset to keep it in an acceptable condition and to preserve its ability to deliver a defined level of service over the Asset’s Useful Life. Maintenance typically refers to activities aimed at retaining an Asset’s functionality whereas repair typically refers to activities aimed at restoring an Asset’s functionality. They include: Cyclical Maintenance such as preventative maintenance, condition inspections and component replacements.Repairs or Reactive/Corrective Maintenance such as replacement of damaged components so that the Asset can be brought back to a normal operating condition.Catch-up Maintenance to address Deferred Work.Examples of maintenance and repair activities include… (to be added).For heritage assets, maintenance and repairs includes conservation treatments related to restoration, preservation, rehabilitation or stabilization.   Capital refers to capitalized expenditures related to the acquisition or construction of New Assets and the Betterment (Renewal, Improvement and/or Replacement) of existing Assets. New Assets, acquired or constructed, have been assessed as necessary through a rigorous strategic assessment that takes into account contribution to program objectives, Whole-of-life Costs and impact on current Maintenance and Repair and Capital requirements.Renewal A capital intervention involving the reconstruction or replacement of enough components such that the asset’s useful life is appreciably prolonged. It improves the condition of the asset and may result in an enduring increase to the value of the asset.Replacement A capital intervention involving the replacement of an asset with another having the same function. Where the intervention results in an asset that is appreciably different from the original, then the asset is considered new, versus replaced.Recapitalization A capital intervention involving renewal or replacement of an existing asset.Improvement is a capacity, change of use or functional improvement or retrofit to an existing asset that results in an enduring change to the purpose of an asset or increase to the functionality, capacity or value of an asset which may or may not significantly extends its useful life. Improvement expenditures are capitalized and include, but are not limited to:capacity improvements such as building additions, campground and parking lot expansions;change of use improvements such as the repurposing of a building from operational use to visitor use;functional improvements such as mechanization of locks, campground reconfigurations, energy efficiency improvements; and,retrofits such as code compliance upgrades and barrier free access upgrades.For heritage Assets, Renewal includes one or more conservation treatments such as restoration, preservation, rehabilitation or stabilization.For contemporary Assets, Renewal includes interventions such as major component replacements, partial reconstruction, or stabilization. Here are some of the useful lives we have been using at Parks Canada Asset Annual Capital Reinvestment Rate  2018 Useful Life 2018 Buildings 2.0% 50 Bridges 1.7% 60 Fortifications 1.7% 60 Heritage Structures and Vessels 1.7% 60 Improved grounds 4.0% 25 Roads n/a n/a Roads: Pavement (0.25 CRV) 10.0% 10 Roads: Sub-surface (0.75 CRV) 2.0% 50 Highways n/a n/a Highways: Pavement (0.25   10     Highways: Sub-surface (0.75 CRV) 2.0% 50 Marine Assets n/a n/a Marine: Dams, Water-retaining Structures, Marine Walls, Navigation Channels 1.3% 80 Marine: Locks, wharves, docks, boat launches, breakwaters, boom and safety barriers, buoys, other marine structures 2.5% 40 Presentations (Exhibits) 10.0% 10 Utilities 2.5% 40

Response Rate: 6/14 for 43%

Key Findings:

  • Alberta:
    •  4 maintenance/funding strategies to deal with the varied categories/types of assets within the Parks:
      • Routine Maintenance (RM): 10-30% of operational budget
      • Time-based Maintenance (TbM) , also known as Life Cycle Maintenance (LCM): 25-30% of capital budget
      • Condition-based Maintenance (CbM):  From capital budget. Each year all 5 regions submit a list of projects and the CMR committee scores/ranks them. Based on the capital budget a list of approved projects are set. We have a rolling 5 year project list that we establish at least 2-3 years in advance and make adjustments if required 3 months prior to fiscal start.
      • Capital Replacement Investments: Large scale investments, submit a separate capital investment ask.
    • Budget is made up of two types of funding:
      • Operational Funding
      • Capital Budget: Set by Alberta Treasury Board
    • Working on Restrategizing
  • Saskatchewan: No particular tools or strategies
  • Ontario: “Our plant is not in good enough condition to successfully use a predictive/formulaic allocation model; we are compelled to make prioritization decisions in conjunction with parks”
    • Hierarchy of Needs type model: Starting with immediate threats to human health and safety, flowing downwards towards new equipment acquisitions
    • Provides further breakdown in the comment section
  • Newfoundland and Labrador
    • Zero Based Budgeting approach
    • No formal asset management tool
    • Projects are given funding based on submissions and public/staff feedback
  • Nova Scotia
    • Prioritized based on impact to visitor experience, critical infrastructure, etc. Prioritize list and address as funds are available
  • Parks Canada
    • Annual reinvestment rate model: Annual Maintenance and Repair (M&R) reinvestment rate = 1 divided by the useful life of an asset. For an asset with 50 year useful life, 1/50= 2%, so 2% of that assets total value should be budgeted each year for M&R. 2% is an average rate, lower for newer assets, higher as they age
  • It would seem that provincial Park systems do not generally have the budget to be able to realize standard budgeting tools, as their ability to allocate funds must be highly flexible and based on a prioritization need.
  • Park systems that tend to bring in higher capital are in a better place to create budgeting models as they have a more reliable funding model to be able to allocate.

Future Questions to Ask:

  • How do parks categorize their hierarchy of needs allocation models?
  • Across the jurisdictions, what characteristics are looked at to determine need for maintenance funds?

Links to Resources:

2019 Indigenous Use Fees

2019 Jurisdictional Scan: Indigenous Use Fees
 Does your organization have policy/direction regarding use of your parks by Indigenous peoples; and if so, are you willing to share it with Ontario Parks?
JURISDICTIONREPLIEDYES/NOCONTACT NAME
B.C PARKSX  
ALBERTA PARKSX  
SASKATCHEWAN PARKSNOBruce McCannel bruce.mccannel@gov.sk.ca
COMMENTS: Saskatchewan Parks Division does not have a specific comprehensive policy that provides direction for use of provincial park land by First Na3ons and Métis peoples to exercise Treaty and Aboriginal rights. Instead, various policy, legislation and regulations, guidelines, and other management tools administered by the Ministry of Parks, Culture and Sport, Ministry of Environment, and Ministry of Government Relations provide direction for subsistence hunting, trapping and fishing and carrying out traditional activities such as gathering of plants and conducting ceremonial activities on provincial park land. Such management tools include the following: o Saskatchewan Parks Division Policy #40.01 – Entry Permits: This policy indicates that a “courtesy entry permit” is issued per vehicle, free of charge, for a variety of reasons, including “allowing access to the park for traditional resource use activities”. This courtesy entry permit does not allow for occupants of a vehicle to use park facilities or provide re-entry to the park. Subsistence hun3ng, fishing and trapping and traditional activities such as gathering and ceremonial activities are considered to be “traditional resource use activities’ ‘. Authority for Policy #40.01 is provided by The Parks Act and The Provincial Parks Regulations, 1991. o Provincial Park Zoning: The zoning plan for a park will indicate where hun3ng, fishing and trapping and other traditional activities (e.g., gathering; ceremonies) can occur in a provincial park. Licenced and subsistence hun3ng, fishing and trapping activities generally take place in the same locations. o Provincial Legislation and Regulations addressing fishing, hunting and trapping: Legislation and regulations administered by the Ministry of Environment provides the basic framework for licensed and subsistence hunting, trapping and fishing in Saskatchewan, including on provincial park lands. o Annual Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Guides: Printed annually to provide an overview of basic legislation, regulations and policy guiding hun3ng, angling and trapping activities, including when these activities are allowed and where they can occur, including on provincial park land. Licenced and subsistence activities generally take place in the same locations, however, licenced activities are restricted to certain 3mes of the year, while subsistence activities, such as fishing and hunting, generally can occur year-round. o Treaty and Aboriginal Rights for Hun3ng and Fishing Guide, December 2018: This guide specifically outlines who will have Treaty and Aboriginal rights to hunt and fish for food in Saskatchewan. This guide also outlines other considerations for the exercise of Treaty and Aboriginal rights with respect to hunting and fishing. This document is meant to complement the Annual Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Guides and existing legislation, regulations and policy. o Saskatchewan’s First Nations and Métis Consultation Policy Framework: Provides guidance addressing duty to consult and accommodate when proposed decisions and actions being considered may have potentially adverse impact on the exercise of Treaty and Aboriginal rights. Provincial park land is considered to be occupied Crown land to which there is a right- of-access for First Nations and Métis people.
MANITOBA PARKSX  
ONTARIO PARKSInquiring Jurisdiction Ryan Large ryan.large@ontario.ca
COMMENTS: My name is Ryan Large and I am an Indigenous Relations Advisor with Ontario Parks. We were hoping that you would be agreeable in sending a request to your network of colleagues across Canada to obtain information on the application of fees for Indigenous use of parks. We have drafted a response below that we feel would obtain the appropriate level of information that we are requiring. Please let me know if you have any questions! Thank you and have a great weekend! – Ryan   July 26, 2019   REQUEST FOR INFORMATION – Application of fees for Indigenous park users   Dear Colleagues, Ontario Parks is undertaking a review of their approach with respect to use of provincial parks by Indigenous persons. To inform this review, Ontario Parks is requesting information pertaining to the application of fees for Indigenous peoples from parks agencies across Canada. At this time, Ontario parks does not charge a fee for access into a provincial park or conservation reserve to First Nation or Métis community members within their traditional territory to exercise their Aboriginal or treaty rights (such as hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering, ceremonial activities). Fees are applied to First Nation or Métis community members and their families for recreational day use of parks and their facilities, services and programs. Fees are also applied to First Nation or Métis community members and their families for recreational camping on developed campsites. Developed campsites include those campsites in organized campgrounds, back country campsites and group campsites. Fees are set for car camping, roofed structures (e.g. yurts, cabins, etc.), interior camping and extra vehicle parking to cover the use of infrastructure and services (e.g. roads, campsites, comfort stations, trails, beaches, natural heritage programs, washrooms and potable water) in those operating parks which provide for camping. If you could please answer the following questions below by August 23, 2019 and send it to ryan.large@ontario.ca, I would sincerely appreciate it. If you are interested in receiving a follow-up email about information collected through this request, please let Ryan know in your response back.   1. Does your organization have policy/direction regarding use of your parks by Indigenous peoples; and if so, are you willing to share it with Ontario Parks? 2. Do park entry fees apply to Indigenous peoples who enter a park for activities not related to Aboriginal or treaty rights, such as camping, day use, etc. (If so, for what purposes)? 3. Does your organization have legislative provisions or policies that specifically address the exercise of Aboriginal or treaty rights in parks? 4. Do park entry/camping fees apply to Indigenous peoples who enter a park for the purpose of exercising of Aboriginal or treaty rights (If yes, please explain)? 5. If fees are waived/discounted for Indigenous peoples, is the discount applied universally or is it only applied for parks within the Indigenous person’s treaty/traditional area? Additionally, if a discounted fee is applied, how do your staff determine if an individual qualifies for the discounted fee? 6. Is there any other information regarding use of your parks by Indigenous people that you would like to share with us?
SEPAQ (QUEBEC)X  
NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR PARKSX  
NOVA SCOTIA PARKSNO 
COMMENTS: We have no policy direction
PARKS NEW BRUNSWICKX  
P.E.I PARKSX  
GOVERNMENT OF NORTHWEST TERRITORIES PARKSX  
NUNAVUT PARKSNOLinda Vallancourt Lvallancourt@gov.nu.ca
COMMENTS: To date, Nunavut Parks does not charge any fee to anyone (Inuit or non-Inuit).
YUKON PARKSX  
PARKS CANADAX  
Do park entry fees apply to Indigenous peoples who enter a park for activities not related to Aboriginal or treaty rights, such as camping, day use, etc. (If so, for what purposes)?
JURISDICTIONCOMMENTS
SASKATCHEWAN PARKSYes. · As per Policy #40.01 (see response to Question #1), at those parks where entry fees are charged, First Nations and Métis people must pay entry fees when the purpose of the park visit is not to solely exercise Treaty or Aboriginal rights. If camping or other park facilities are used, then entry and/or camping fees must be paid.
NOVA SCOTIA PARKSAny park fees do apply to Indigenous Peoples
NUNAVUT PARKSN/A
Does your organization have legislative provisions or policies that specifically address the exercise of Aboriginal or treaty rights in parks?
JURISDICTIONCOMMENTS
SASKATCHEWAN PARKSPlease see the response to Question #1.
NOVA SCOTIA PARKSNothing specific
NUNAVUT PARKSN/A
Do park entry/camping fees apply to Indigenous peoples who enter a park for the purpose of exercising of Aboriginal or treat rights (If yes, please explain)
JURISDICTIONCOMMENTS
SASKATCHEWAN PARKSAt those parks where entry fees are charged, park entry fees are not charged when entering a park for the sole purpose of exercising Treaty or Aboriginal rights.  However, if camping and other park facilities are used, entry and camping fees are charged.
NOVA SCOTIA PARKSNS does not have entry fees, however camping fees would currently apply
NUNAVUT PARKSN/A
If fees are waived/discounted for Indigenous peoples, is the discount applied universally or is it only applied for parks within the Indigenous person’s treaty/traditional area? Additionally, if a discounted fee is applied, how do your staff determine if an individual qualifies for the discounted fee?
JURISDICTIONCOMMENTS
SASKATCHEWAN PARKSSaskatchewan Parks Division policy does not address if park entry fees are waived only for First Nations and Métis peoples for a park in their treaty/traditional area. Instead, hun3ng and fishing guidelines provided by the Ministry of Environment provide direction. · The Treaty and Aboriginal Rights for Hunting and Fishing Guide, December 2018 outlines who may exercise Treaty and Aboriginal rights for hun3ng, trapping and fishing in Saskatchewan. This Guide notes the following: Who Can Exercise Treaty Rights to Hunt, Fish and Trap in Saskatchewan: § “An individual exercising the Treaty right to hunt, fish and trap for food in Saskatchewan must be a registered Indian as defined by the Government of Canada’s Indian Act and carry a valid Certificate of Indian Status, which identifies membership in one of the First Nations listed in this guide, regardless of their present province of residence. These are the First Na3ons that are signatory to Treaty 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 or 10 that fall within the provincial boundary, as well as those First Nations located within Saskatchewan that have not signed a Treaty.” § “Treaty rights in Saskatchewan can be exercised on unoccupied Crown lands and other lands to which there is a right-of-access, throughout the province, subject to the land provisions set out in this guide.” (ASIDE: Saskatchewan’s provincial park land is occupied Crown land to which there is a right-of-access.) May Exercise Aboriginal Rights, and Where, in Saskatchewan: § Certain historic and contemporary Métis communities may exercise Aboriginal rights to hunt, fish and trap for food in some areas of Saskatchewan, especially in the Northern Saskatchewan Administration District. (ASIDE: Provincial park land would be found in these areas.)
NOVA SCOTIA PARKSN/A
NUNAVUT PARKSN/A
Is there any other information regarding use of your parks by Indigenous people that you would like to share with us?
JURISDICTIONCOMMENTS
SASKATCHEWAN PARKSPark Advisory Groups: In addition to recognizing Treaty and Aboriginal rights, Saskatchewan Parks encourages First Nations and Métis to be members of Park Advisory Groups (PAG). Membership of a PAG can include municipal, First Nations and Métis communities, interest groups, voyager associations, campers, and recreation clubs that have interest in a park and its surrounding area. A PAG provides insight and recommendations for a park manager to consider for planning, management and operational maiers. · Education and Interpretation Activities: Many parks work with First Nations and Métis people in the park area to develop and deliver education and interpre3ve programs. · Partnerships; Working Groups: A park may partner and work with First Nations and Mé3s to carry out a specific project.
NOVA SCOTIA PARKSThe department published a document entitled Story Circles, which identified areas of collaboration to tell the Indigenous story
NUNAVUT PARKSN/A

Response Rate: 3/13 for 23%

Key Findings:

  • Responding jurisdictions did not charge use fees for anyone. Camping fees apply to everyone.

Future Questions to Ask:

  • What can be done to increase and promote visitation and participation by Indigenous visitors in parks?

Links to Resources:

  • None

2019 Drafting of Legal Land Descriptions

2019 Jurisdictional Scan: Drafting of Legal Land Descriptions
Alberta Parks would like to know how legal land descriptions are completed in your jurisdictions – whether in-house (by one or many individuals), or contracted out externally (if so, to what kind of contractor).
JURISDICTIONREPLIEDYES/NOCONTACT NAME
B.C PARKSX  
ALBERTA PARKSInquiring Jurisdiction Scott Jones Scott.Jones@gov.ab.ca
Original Email: In Alberta, our parks and protected areas are legally established via Order in Council, with an accompanying legal land description which outlines the site’s legal boundary. The person who has developed these legal land descriptions for Alberta has recently re?red. While others have been trained, it will be some time before their work can meet the same level of excellence. Alberta Parks would like to know how legal land descriptions are completed in your jurisdictions – whether in-house (by one or many individuals), or contracted out externally (if so, to what kind of contractor). Please get back to Tracy Draper and Robin Schmidt directly (cc’d) or please forward this email to someone who can response on your organization’s behalf. We’re also interested in any tips and tricks that you team’s may have when it comes to legal land descriptions. Alberta will provide a summary of what we’ve heard back to the CPC board.
SASKATCHEWAN PARKSX  
MANITOBA PARKSX  
ONTARIO PARKSX  
SEPAQ (QUEBEC)X  
NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR PARKSYesSian French SianFrench@gov.nl.ca
COMMENTS: Hi Scott, Our parks and protected areas are legally established in the same manner. Legal land descriptions for new parks and protected areas are typically completed in house by GIS staff and reviewed by crown land or GIS and Mapping Division staff. We’ve not established any new parks or protected areas in a few years and we’ve undergone a reorganization so things may change on a go forward basis. I’m also copying Rick Carey and Jeri Graham on this email thread in case they wish to add anything from the protected areas perspective. Sincerely, Sian
NOVA SCOTIA PARKSX  
PARKS NEW BRUNSWICKX  
P.E.I PARKSX  
GOVERNMENT OF NORTHWEST TERRITORIES PARKSX  
NUNAVUT PARKSX  
YUKON PARKSX  
PARKS CANADAX  

Response Rate: 1/13 for 7%

Key Findings:

  • Too few responses to give general insights
  • Newfoundland and Labrador Parks are mostly mapped in house

Future Questions to Ask:

  • What other methods do other jurisdictions use to map park boundaries?

Links to Resources:

  • N/A

Format # 2: Multiple Questions Format

Note: Jurisdictions that do not respond as reported in section one may have their rows deleted in the following section to save space.

(Insert Year) Jurisdictional Scan: (Insert Theme)
(Insert Leading Yes/No Question)
JURISDICTIONREPLIEDYES/NOCONTACT NAME
B.C PARKS Name (Hyperlink Email)
COMMENTS:
ALBERTA PARKSX  
COMMENTS: (delete this row for jurisdictions that do not respond)
SASKATCHEWAN PARKSInquiring Jurisdiction  
Original Email: (Only for Inquiring Jurisdictions
MANITOBA PARKS   
COMMENTS:
ONTARIO PARKS   
COMMENTS:
SEPAQ (QUEBEC)   
COMMENTS:
NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR PARKS   
COMMENTS:
NOVA SCOTIA PARKS   
COMMENTS:
PARKS NEW BRUNSWICK   
COMMENTS:
P.E.I PARKS   
COMMENTS:
GOVERNMENT OF NORTHWEST TERRITORIES PARKS   
COMMENTS:
NUNAVUT PARKS   
COMMENTS:
YUKON PARKS   
COMMENTS:
PARKS CANADA   
COMMENTS:
(Insert 1st Detailed Question)
JURISDICTIONCOMMENTS
B.C PARKS 
ALBERTA PARKS 
SASKATCHEWAN PARKS 
MANITOBA PARKS 
ONTARIO PARKS 
SEPAQ (QUEBEC) 
NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR PARKS 
NOVA SCOTIA PARKS 
PARKS NEW BRUNSWICK 
P.E.I PARKS 
GOVERNMENT OF NORTHWEST TERRITORIES PARKS 
NUNAVUT PARKS 
YUKON PARKS 
PARKS CANADA 
(Insert 2nd Detailed Question)
JURISDICTIONCOMMENTS
B.C PARKS 
ALBERTA PARKS 
SASKATCHEWAN PARKS 
MANITOBA PARKS 
ONTARIO PARKS 
SEPAQ (QUEBEC) 
NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR PARKS 
NOVA SCOTIA PARKS 
PARKS NEW BRUNSWICK 
P.E.I PARKS 
GOVERNMENT OF NORTHWEST TERRITORIES PARKS 
NUNAVUT PARKS 
YUKON PARKS 

Response Rate: (# of responses)/13 for x%

Key Findings:

  • Provide key insights from responses

Future Questions to Ask:

  • Consider future jurisdictional scan questions/general questions that arose while reading

Links to Resources:

  • x