Skip to main content

Members of the 78th Highlanders prepare to fire the noon gun on Citadel Hill in Halifax on Monday April 10, 2006. Parks Canada's crumbling forts, historical houses and other heritage structures are in much poorer shape than the agency estimates.

Andrew Vaughan/THE CANADIAN PRESS

Parks Canada's crumbling forts, historical houses and other heritage structures are in much poorer shape than the agency estimates.

That's the finding of an independent consultant asked to review a comprehensive inventory created by Parks Canada to determine how much repair work is needed for its varied infrastructure across the country.

The agency's 2012 inventory found that 47 per cent of all its assets — from dams, bridges and roads, to old stone forts — are in poor or very poor condition.

Story continues below advertisement

But Opus International Consultants Ltd. said its own sampling of hundreds of assets pushed that overall level to 53 per cent.

And so-called cultural assets — the historical houses, fortifications, locks and other heritage gems from Canada's past — are in even worse shape.

Opus estimates 61 per cent of these 2,000 structures are in poor or very poor shape, compared with Parks Canada's more rosy assessment of just 33 per cent.

"Results indicate that at the portfolio level the value of (Parks Canada) assets in poor condition has increased from condition reported in the 2012 National Asset Review," says the Opus report, which cost taxpayers $316,000.

A copy of the Dec. 16, 2013, document was obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.

Parks Canada has come under fire in recent years for weak management of its real-estate portfolio, which includes historic canals and archeological sites, in addition to campgrounds, access roads and visitor centres.

An internal evaluation in 2009 slammed officials for failing to maintain a reliable inventory of hundreds of buildings and other structures, estimated to be worth some $15-billion today.

Story continues below advertisement

In response, Parks Canada undertook a thorough review of all its assets in 2012 to set a baseline, estimating there was $2.9-billion worth of deferred repairs.

More than half the deferred work was earmarked for waterways, highways and bridges — so-called high-risk assets — but Opus found these structures were in better condition than Parks Canada estimated.

Instead, irreplaceable cultural assets were found to be the most neglected, with almost two-thirds requiring about $230-million worth of repairs and maintenance work.

A spokeswoman for Parks Canada said the agency is still reviewing the Opus report, which she said largely backs the inventory estimates about the cost of repair work.

"Parks Canada has invested an average of $119-million annually over the last 10 years on the recapitalization of its infrastructure," Genevieve Patenaude said in an email.

"Investments include incremental capital resources announced by the government, the most recent of which was $19-million announced in Budget 2013 to address critical improvements to national park highways and bridges."

Story continues below advertisement

Parks Canada, which operates more than 200 national parks, historic sites and marine conservation areas, has been hit hard since 2012 with budget cuts. The agency lost some 587 staff in 2012-2013, for example, or about 13 per cent of its workforce.

At the same time, 20.6 million people visited its sites in 2012-2013, a three per cent increase and the first rise in visitor numbers in four years.

Report an error
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.
Cannabis pro newsletter