The future of Upper Canada Village

I have read the letter from the Ontario Public Service Employees Union about recent changes at Upper Canada Village.

I have talked with the General Manager and CEO of St. Lawrence Parks Commission Pat Macdonald.

I have read the letters to the editor in the Seaway News.

Now my story.

I have visited the Upper Canada Village on many occasions over the years and after the first couple of times, it’s pretty neat. After a few visits, alas, it’s pretty boring. Having lived just down the road apiece I was able to check things out on a regular basis.

But what about the tourists who have come from long distances to visit the site, enjoyed the visit and perhaps came back the next year or the year after that. If the tourist destination never changes, it becomes stale in my mind and we do not encourage return visits. In other words if there’s nothing new what’s the point of going back.

Every tourist attraction anywhere always wants new visitors but no tourist attraction anywhere cannot depend on just brand new one-time visitors each and every year. In order to be a viable business (yes, it’s a business and needs to make money) repeat business is an absolute necessity. My goodness just ask any business person in Cornwall and SD & G.

Now according to Pat Macdonald change at the Upper Canada Village is the only way they’re going to keep enticing former visitors back to the site. Otherwise why would they come back? “Change is difficult for everybody but change is also in the eyes of the beholder,” says Macdonald.

I guess in the business of media, both radio and newspaper, change is the spice of life. Not change for the sake of change but change to improve the product. Change that keeps regular listeners and readers interested and with any luck, entices new ears and eyes to the product.

Macdonald doesn’t apologize for making any changes. She says it’s necessary to keep the Village a destination point every year and to keep it in the black as best they can. She has been in the top position with the Commission for only two years but the disturbing trend, according to her figures is that in the past 30-years attendance at the village has been declining, although the drop-off appears to have been stemmed for the time being.

She says in 1961 they had 200,000 visitors. That increased in a banner year—1974—370,000 guests. She says though, visits have declined in the 1860’s core programming to only 129,000 visitors last year. “It's the new things that have increased the visitor numbers in the past year.”

Macdonald believes they're attracting a new market and a new segment of the population with its new programs throughout the year. “It's costing us two million dollars to subsidize the village after the government grants are taken into account,” says Macdonald, “things have to be cut when one part of your business starts to take more and more out of operations.”

Some have questioned the Village’s new mission statement but it seems to me something had to be done to keep the facility operating with a future. “We had to achieve long term sustainability and that we were going to be more customer focussed and market driven. Not just about education but providing entertaining experiences as well."

Now if the above quote is the mission statement, what’s so bad with that?

OPSEU has indicated some changes has resulted in almost “half of the interpretive staff—39 of about 80—not returning,” according to the union letter sent to the Minister of Tourism on May 13th this year.

Macdonald says that in error—“that we've let go 39 of 80 employees.”

She says of “101 staff last year we eliminated 18 positions in the village proper and then we created 4 new heritage trade positions and 2 new supervisor unit positions. Now we're down to 12 staff eliminated. When your attendance has dropped to less than half of what it was in your heyday, your staffing model is no longer (cost) effective."

To me, I sense that some purists do not want any changes at the Upper Canada Village and frankly, there are changes I wouldn’t want to see either but you have to grow, you have to try new things. "We have to find a way to get more people to come to the village,” says Macdonald, “Straight interpretation is not as appealing as it once was. People are becoming less interested in them.”

Macdonald believes they are providing a really good guest experience. She says they’re providing deeper interpretations at the Village, pointing out the Doctor’s house and interactivity of candle dipping and handling some old tools that the kids can do. Any major museum will tell you that static exhibits under glass or just sitting there don’t cut it anymore in today’s quest for entertainment.

The union letter goes on to cite “increased commercialization of the site that includes the conversion of a rare 1820’s heritage building, Cook’s Tavern, into a restaurant and bar.”

When I read that concern to Macdonald she said “That’s a bunch of nonsense.”

She agrees with the union that Cook’s Tavern is definitely a heritage building and she points out that it’s one management respects. Macdonald says they brought in an interpreter to talk about the tavern, but otherwise the building was pretty dead. People wanted more. So they brought in some sasparilla and ginger beer and for a toonie you could have a glass. “People loved it.” "The comment that we got was that people wanted to have a beer. We couldn’t do so because we had no liquor license and to get that licence we have to serve a food item. We’ll serve village cheese, village bread and a big old fashioned kettle of soup. There's been accusations that we're wrecking the building and it's absolute nonsense," said Macdonald, “Chairs and tables will match the period; cabinetry is original and artifacts will be behind glass to protect them.”

Macdonald says "We are respecting the heritage buildings without a doubt but most of these people who are objecting to what we're doing are people whose families were displaced by the (St. Lawrence Seaway) flooding some 50-years ago. They look upon Upper Canada Village as a memorial rather than a place that should grow to meet the needs of the tourists celebrating the 1860's. They object to anything that changes the Village. If you don't change, you don't grow, and if they really care about a legacy, the legacy has to be able to sustain operations and to provide jobs."

To end, of course the staff at Upper Canada Village must protect and honour what they have already, but let’s not stagnate in the process.

Give me and thousands of other visitors who have been to the site, done it and have the T-shirt, reason to go back for another visit and perhaps another T-shirt.

I’m John Divinski.