Talk:List of national parks of Canada

Comment

Any objections to grouping the parks by province/territory instead of alphabetically? (Teryx 19:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

It looks much better than it would alphabetically!

I think it should be in order of the years!:(

Arranging Parks

I agree that they should be done east to west or west to east..(Stormbay 19:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC))

National Parks?

Are Downsview National Park and Saguenay - St. Lawrence Marine Park realy national parks? They don't show up in the Parks Canada list. Qyd^(talk)22:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

According to the Downsview Park site it says "The long-anticipated start of development of Canada's First National Urban Park at Downsview Park is set to begin." So it would seem that they are planning on turning it into a National Park, but is not at the moment.

This page on the Parks Canada website lists the Saguenay - St. Lawrence Marine Park as a "National Marine Conservation Area", and it is a park in Quebec. So someone probably put those two facts together and got National Park. Qutezuce 23:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

And it looks as though the same can be said about Fathom Five National Marine Park. Qutezuce 23:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Lake Superior

On this map I recently bought, there is a big square of land in Northwest Lake Superior that says "National Marine Conservation area - Proposed" There's also a name, but I forget it. This is not mentioned here, is there a reason? -- Scorpion 14:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've inserted a note about Lake Superior NMCA under "Adding to the System". Check out the reference for expanded information and a map. Yoho2001 09:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Formatting

Notes on original park names and dates of establishment/renaming were first included as footnotes, then moved into a Remarks column. Does this work better, or look too crowded? Also, there was a column listing exact establishment dates, helpful for research, and park anniversaries. I suggest putting it back in as a sortable column, or at least putting it in Remarks or as footnotes. Thoughts? If you can figure how to eliminate that odd narrow column on the right of the National Parks list, more power to you. Yoho2001 07:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

NMCA vs. Marine Parks

I posted the same question on Template talk:National parks of Canada: Is there a difference between a Marine Park and Marine Conservation Area? If Fathom Five for example, is titled as a Marine Park, why is it listed as a NMCA? I only ask because I'm reading in the news that Harper's announcement today will be for the "first NMCA" - which seems true, if we ignore these categorizations. --Padraic 13:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and create Lake Superior National Marine Conservation Area, so feel free to discuss this over there. --Padraic 13:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Bold, indeed, Padraic. Lake Superior NMCA was only just created in September 2015, after having been proposed for many years. Parks Canada news releases confused the matter, duping many into thinking it was an accomplished fact when it was not. Similar announcements have been made about other proposed parks. The legislation to create them can be years away from the announcement of intent. Yoho2001 (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Yoho2001: In know the way is generally confusing. Parks Canada generally consider a park created when a "Land Transfer Agreement" is signed with a province or a territory. Like for La Mauricie National Park, the agreement was made in 1970, but the park was etablished only in 1977. Maybe we should put note on the parks who are actually exist because of these agreements (Pukaskwa, Bruce Peninsula and Mealy Mountains). --Fralambert (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Codillera region

the Cordillera has a lot of natual resouses and landforms. The Cordillera runs from British Colubia to the Yukon!
Written by Sabrina Fagan  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.216.188.3 (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC) 

Cleaning up table to look more like the table in List of National Parks of the United States

Any objections to this idea?

I don't think there are photos for every park, but they could be added over time.

It seems like a more inviting format to me. Radiowallah (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Radiowallah

I've previously considered using that kind of format, but we don't have images for a good chunk of the parks (though to be fair, I haven't looked in about a year). I also find the coordinates a bit misleading and not particularly useful (a map is a much easier way to show the location of parks). As for the descriptions, I suppose they could work, but you would have to make sure they were sourced. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about not using the Sandbox...new to this. I agree, the coordinates are not useful. Descriptions could be built up over time - if some are blank until they are written, isn't that all right? Same goes for photos - I'm sure most could be acquired over time. I think it's worth it for the aesthetic improvement of the page. (Don't you think it looks a lot better though? C'mon admit it) Radiowallah (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Radiowallah

@Scorpion - Looks fantastic!! Great job!! Radiowallah (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Radiowallah

The US list is a straightforward list of the 56 national parks in the country. I like that. It isn't cluttered with park reserves, proposed or abolished parks, or any other sort of parkland managed by the park service (there are 417 in total). It's a list of the "national parks", full stop. Another page lists all official units of the national park system. I think we need to decide what sort of page this one is--a list of the 38 national parks, or a list of all units of the national park system (more then 220). I'd suggest it be a list of national parks, without adding other kinds of parklands like Rouge National Urban Park, NMCAs, NMCARs, or NPRs. Yoho2001 (talk) 06:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I prefer the larger, more inclusive model. The Canadian park system has been much more successful than the US system in no small part due to its greater flexibility. If it is relevant and verifiable it deserves consideration. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Gatineau Park

I've added Gatineau Park to the list . Due to a massive amount of bureaucracy you'd expect in the Ottawa area, it is the only "Federal park" in the country. Instead of creating an entirely new article for the one "federal park", which is basically a "national park" I just added it to the list. UrbanNerd (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Best would be write about Gatineau Park in Protected areas of Canada, it is probably the best place to talk about the park. National Parks of Canada is more a place to talk about the parks of Parks Canada. --Fralambert (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Gatineau Park is federal in that a federal body (the National Capital Commission) governs it. Similarly, the National Battlefields Commission manages National Battlefields Park in Quebec City. But that's not on the list, either. Federal management does not a national park make. I agree with Fralambert, as "national park" refers to a particular kind of federal park, usually administered by a national park service. A few years ago, National Geographic got confused, and used the Parks Canada beaver symbol to identify Gatineau Park. They later corrected that. Yoho2001 (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of National Parks of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100208183213/http://www.vancouversun.com:80/travel/Huge+national+park+announced+Labrador/2526849/story.html to http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Huge+national+park+announced+Labrador/2526849/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Reserves are proposed parks

National Park Reserves are proposed national parks, yet they are listed here as if they were full parks, albeit with a notation. This risks confusing their status, and readers. Perhaps they should be moved to the section 'Proposed national parks', on this page, since that's what they are. Yoho2001 (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, they are technicly quasi full national park. The "reserve" only mean the park have some First Nations territorial claim. They are listed on the National Parks Act, while, some parks (Puskawa and Bruce Peninsula) are not fully created (They exist only by the agrement with the province for the transfert of land). --Fralambert (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

In reading ParksCan policy documents, it's clear that, where there are native land claims, there is no clear title, and so the National Parks Act was amended to permit creation of Park Reserves to manage lands as if they were national parks, without actually being so. So Reserves are technically not parks, but rather areas which are proposed parks. Meantime, parties including Native Americans, have agreed to allow ParksCan to administer the areas under provisions of the Parks Act. But that doesn't make them parks. That's why I'm suggesting they be grouped under Proposed Parks.

The cases of Bruce Peninsula and Pukaskwa are interesting. Bruce exists under various provincial and federal agreements, another method of creating a park. In any case, they are not Reserves, and clear title has been given for national park purposes, so it's fair to say they are national parks and should be on the main list. Yoho2001 (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

We shoud keep them on the list, since mostly all the parks created since Kejimkujik were created by provincial and federal agreements. The best is probably leave a note on the creation date that the park was created by a provincial and federal agreement but was not fully established. I also think we should probably also put note on the park like:"Pacific Rim was created by a federal and provincial agreement made in 1970, the park was established only in 2001". --Fralambert (talk) 04:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

A park created by a provincial-federal agreement is still a full park once it is established. But one created as a Reserve is not a full park until land claims are settled, and clear title is given, in which case its name is changed by removing "Reserve". It's for this reason that I suggest Reserves be removed from this list of National Parks, because they are not national parks (yet, anyway). Rouge National Urban Park should also be removed, as it wasn't created under the Parks Act, but required a separate act, and is not a National Park. Yes, it's a national park system unit, like National Historic Sites, but is in a different category from the National Parks. Yoho2001 (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreement vs. Establishment years

For helping of the previous discussions, I made a list about the agreement year vs. the establisment year. --Fralambert (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Based on [1]

Park	Agreement year	Establishment year	Park year (if a reserve is transformed in park)
Kekimkujik	1967	1974
Kouchibouguac	1969	1979
Pacific Rim (R)	1970	2001 [2]
Forillon	1970	1974
La Mauricie	1970	1977
Pukaskwa	1971
Kuane (R)	1972	1976
Nahanni (R)	1972	1976
Auyuttuq	1972	1976 (R)	2001
Gros Morne	1973	2005 [3]
Grasslands	1981	2001[4]
Mingan Archipelago (R)		1984
Ivvavik	1984	1984
Quttinirpaaq	1986	1988 (R)	2001
Bruce Peninsula	1987
Gwaii Haanas (R)	1988	1996
Aulavik	1992	2001
Vuntut	1993	1995
Wapusk	1996	2010
Tuktut Nogait	1996	1998
Sirmilik		2001 [5]
Ukkusiksalik	2003	2015
Gulf Islands (R)	2003	2010
Torngat Mountains		2005 (R)	2008
Sable Island (R)		2013
Naats'ihch'oh (R)		2014
Qausuittuq		2015
Akami–uapishku-KakKasuak-Mealy Mountains (R)	2015

This is helpful, as would exact dates be. If you have sources, I'd be glad to work on this, too. Having exact dates would allow anniversaries to be acknowledged, for one thing. Yoho2001 (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Yoho2001: Part of it are on the las page of the [file:///C:/Users/FRANCO~1/AppData/Local/Temp/National-Park-System-Plan-Parks-Canada.pdf National Parks System Plan] of 1997. --Fralambert (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, but this list does not include dates, only years. It also omits the great majority of national park system units (the National Historic Sites). I've asked Parks for a full list of dates for years. Nothing.

Unrelated: I've sent several notes over the past few years to suggest the National Historic Sites infobox line width be narrowed. The red color does not require such thick lines, which make it appear more like a warning button haha. Perhaps you have a suggestion about whom to reach regarding that template. Yoho2001 (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Other protected areas

Hey everyone. I have been working to harmonize provincial and territorial lists of parks and protected areas. So far I have nearly completed Ontario's list, and I have chipped away at BC's list. I have also been putting my mind other directory lists: List of Canadian protected areas and Lists of parks in Canada. Now looking to this article, I have noted that it is focused on "National Parks of Canada", but that it encompasses other protected areas that are not "parks" per se: Pingo National Landmark and NMCAs (the latter which are maintained by Fisheries and Oceans Canada). There are also National Historic Sites, National Wildlife Areas and Migratory Bird Sanctuaries.

I've taken a look at all of this content, and I am leaning towards not merging all of this content into one article, similar to how I have been working on provincial/territorial lists. However, I do believe we need to be more consistent; things that are not national parks should not be in this article, and they could or should not be combined into a separate article for national protected areas. I'd like to hear some feedback on this; I'm not about to go messing around on a featured article until we have some consensus. --Natural R_X 22:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Natural RX: Yes, splitting them up would be a good idea simply because they are not the same and expanding on every group separately would avoid a bloated article that tries to cover too many topics.

since you mentioned the other parks: A few users have been toiling away at the provincial parks for Wiki Loves Earth 2017 in Canada - based on Wikidata, we've created lists that should encompass all the parks in Canada by province, for example User:Braveheart/List of provincial parks of British Columbia. Just a question of how to move those lists into the main namespace now ;-) Braveheart (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of National Parks of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160404110753/http://www.pc.gc.ca/agen/wwf/conservation/lancaster.aspx to http://www.pc.gc.ca/agen/wwf/conservation/lancaster.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Checked, but also this was replaced with a better source during the featured list review. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of National Parks of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20171209152012/http://www.mddelcc.gouv.qc.ca/biodiversite/aires_protegees/registre/reg-design/05Milieu-marin.pdf to http://www.mddelcc.gouv.qc.ca/biodiversite/aires_protegees/registre/reg-design/05Milieu-marin.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Not actually checked, I just replaced the French-language summary report with an English-language map containing the same information. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Miguasha National Park

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I just want to ask why Miguasha National Park is not on the list. Are there different federal and state level national parks in Canada? regards: --Freewales (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC) (from the Hungarian Wiki)

• This list only covers the parks that are covered by the Canada National Parks Act. Miguasha is a provincial park operated by the province of Quebec. However, Quebec names their provincial parks "Parc national", so that is why the confusing name is there. maclean (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Ok, thank you for the answer -Freewales (talk) 10:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Quebec national parks

I added a hatnote to distinguish this list from the list of parks operated by Quebec which are also called national parks, but I'm not sure if the note is very clear. Would appreciate more eyes on it. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Sort of the parks by area.

If you sort the parks by area, Kluane (area = 5,900 square km) is ranked higher than Wood Buffalo (area = 44,972 square km). I suspect that this is because Kluane has two values for its area, the value for the park and the value for the reserve. Both values are lower than the area of Wood Buffalo, but the sorting algorithm is messed up by the formatting of the value for Kluane, or something like that. I have no idea how to correct this. AlainFournier (talk) 10:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Good catch. Looks like it was missing the Template:sort markup. Fixed. QuincyMorgan (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Total number of National Parks

This page states that Canada has 38 National Parks. This statement lacks a reference and is in fact incorrect. The Parks Canada webpage states that there are 37 National Parks: https://parks.canada.ca/pn-np. I gather this has to do with the fact that Wikipedia includes Gatineau Park, which is not a National Park (even though it may be administered federally, but not through Parks Canada). I think this discrepancy should be corrected because it is confusing. 142.229.81.213 (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The IP did not look at the whole website, the part that says 37 national parks is outdated. The website actually says there are forty-eight national parks. Catfurball (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

There are 37 National Parks plus 11 National Parks Reserves in Canada (total 48). These are not the same (this has been discussed in detail elsewhere). I am quoting the website: "There are 37 national parks and 11 national park reserves in Canada that represent 31 of Canada's 39 terrestrial natural regions and protect approximately 343,377 square kilometers of lands in Canada.". The number of National Parks on the Wikipedia page should be updated and the proper reference inserted. 142.229.81.213 (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

What is outdated is the number of National Park Reserves on Wikipedia, which is given as 10 but has increased to 11 on July 4, 2024, with the addition of Pituamkek NPR: https://parks.canada.ca/pn-np/cnpn-cnnp/pituamkek. The latter has to be removed from the list of proposed NPRs and has to be added to the main list of NPs and NPRs. 142.229.81.213 (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I just want to say that the wonderful thing about Wikipedia is that anyone can make an edit — even an IP. So, if you see out dated or incorrect info, there's nothing stopping you from fixing it. Cheers! Masterhatch (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Manitoba Lowlands proposal

I noticed that the Manitoba Lowlands proposal was removed from the list of proposed national park reserves because it's not listed on the Parks Canada website, so I did some digging on the topic. According to Manitoba Wildlands ([6]) work on protecting the area has been ongoing since 1970. An MOU was signed between the governments of Canada and Manitoba in 2004, but in 2007 the Cree Nation in the area objected to working with Parks Canada, and the proposal stalled in the feasibility study stage. Parks Canada's annual departmental reports mention progress on the proposal every year from at least 2011-12 until 2017-18. The 2017 federal budget called out funding for this proposal specifically and there was news coverage about it at the time. Then in the 2018-19 report mentioned in an appendix ([7]), listing concluding the "ongoing feasibility study" as a target for that year, and then it's never mentioned again in the departmental reports. Manitoba Wildlands hasn't produced any materials on the project since 2007 and last updated their project website in 2014, and if a feasibility study was actually produced, I can't find it.

My wild guess is that the Cree's opposition effectively killed the proposal, and since 2017 effort shifted to the proposal that became Seal River Watershed. But whatever happened, it's probably correct to exclude Manitoba Lowlands from our list. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 12:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)