Canada West Foundation Blog

We're currently seeking a Director of Fund Development.

About The Canada West Foundation
For forty years the Canada West Foundation has been the only independent and non-partisan think tank focused on public policy issues of vital concern to western Canada. Reporting to the Vice President of Operations and working closely with the President& CEO, the Director of Fund Development is responsible for developing and implementing the Foundation’s comprehensive fund development program, with a particular focus on major gifts and fund development opportunities.

Key accountabilities will include:

• Lead the development, design, implementation, reporting and evaluation of fund development strategies and activities for both annual and long-range plans. This includes annual gifts, planned gifts, grants, major and leadership gifts, sponsorships and partnerships to increase operating fund and endowment funds.
• Manage and steward relationships with funders, members and subscribers.
• Identify, cultivate, inform and involve potential donors. Solicit, recognize and steward donors.
• Coordinate and administer the fund development budget.
• Supervise, mentor and evaluate the Foundation’s Fund Development Coordinator.
• Develop and edit communications materials related to fundraising activities including website content, advertising, brochures, case for support, solicitation letters, thank you letters and funders’ newsletters.
• Represent the organization at external meetings and events.
• Organize and prepare meeting materials for the Development Committee of the Board.

Candidate Profile:
The successful candidate will have a post-secondary education in business, marketing, communications or a related field, ideally a minimum of five to seven years of fundraising experience, and appreciation of public policy and a strong interest in western Canada.

The candidate will have a track record for achieving fundraising goals, with the proven ability to work effectively with volunteers, as well as independently. He or she will have excellent organization, time management and planning skill; strong interpersonal skills; excellent written and oral communication abilities, and will be a strong team player with exceptional leadership, and a drive to achieve results. Experience with Raiser’s Edge is also an asset.

Applications should be submitted via email to “Human Resources” Canada West Foundation at: porteous@cwf.ca no later than 5pm Mountain Daylight Time on October 12, 2011. Only applicants who are selected for an interview will be contacted further. All applicants are thanked for their interest in the Canada West Foundation.

By: Peter Boag

Mobility is a vital enabler of economic activity and Canadians’ high standard of living.  Moving people and goods underpins virtually everything we do.  This is true for any nation but especially true for Canada with our vast geography and dispersed population.

If mobility is a vital feature of economic and social well-being, then it stands to reason that the fuels that enable our mobility are equally vital.  Ships, planes, trains, trucks and automobiles don’t run on air.  They rely on a secure and reliable supply of affordable, fit-for-purpose fuels.  Transportation accounts for nearly 30% of Canada’s total energy consumption.

Petroleum fuels—primarily gasoline, diesel and aviation fuel—are the workhorses that power our transportation system.  They are sophisticated energy products formulated to meet a demanding set of performance expectations.  They are energy dense, making them ideal for mobile use, and they score high marks for availability, safety, reliability and affordability.

Today, petroleum fuels meet 95 per cent of Canada’s transportation fuel needs.  Each year, Canadians consume some 100 billion litres of gasoline, diesel and aviation fuels.  A complex and extensive refining, distribution and retail infrastructure, developed over a 100+ years, ensures that the right fuels are available at the right place, at the right time.

Canada’s transportation fuels future is a growing policy focus for our governments.  Alternatives to petroleum fuels draw a lot of attention, driven primarily by the goal of reducing transportation GHG emissions.  Other drivers of alternative fuels include the view that greater energy security can be achieved through diversifying our energy mix, and a belief that alternatives represent an opportunity to mitigate rising costs of petroleum based fuels.  Some proponents see alternate fuels as partial substitutes for petroleum fuels; others with more extreme ‘off oil’ agendas view alternatives as complete replacements for petroleum fuels.

Without doubt, Canada’s future transportation fuel mix will be much more diverse than it is today.  In the years to come, alternatives to petroleum fuels will play a much larger role in fuelling our transportation system.  However, petroleum fuels will continue to do the heavy lifting well into the future.  Making choices about the optimum mix and pace of change is a daunting exercise.  There are no quick-fix solutions for fuelling a reliable, affordable and environmentally sustainable transportation system.  The issues are complex, multi-faceted and involve considerable uncertainty.

Two fundamental truths underpin the due diligence essential to making the right choices about our future fuel mix.  One, all alternatives to petroleum fuels create environmental impacts—there is no perfectly ‘clean’ fuel.  Clean energy is a relative, not an absolute term.  Two, alternatives to petroleum fuels have characteristics that make them more or less suitable for use as a transportation fuel, and there is no single metric by which they can be assessed.

Comparing the environmental impacts requires a rigorous evaluation across the full life cycle of fuel production, distribution and consumption—it’s not just about tailpipe emissions.  A credible evaluation of life cycle environmental impacts must span the complete spectrum of air, water and land impacts.  This is no easy task, since each fuel is produced and delivered in its own way, using a wide variety of feedstocks, and different technologies and infrastructure.  Uncertainty further complicates matters—life cycle analysis is not (at least yet) an exact science.

Comparing suitability for transportation fuel use involves assessing a range of factors including availability and reliability of supply, cost, performance characteristics, and vehicle fleet and refuelling infrastructure implications.  Can alternative fuels meet consumer expectations for availability, safety, reliability and performance?  Can they be supplied in the time frame needed, in the volume needed and at reasonable cost?  Will the alternative fuel require a different vehicle fleet and/or a new fuel distribution infrastructure, and at what cost?

Any objective analysis will confirm that gasoline, diesel and aviation fuel have a long life ahead of them.  They will remain our transportation energy workhorses well into the future.

Petroleum fuels compare favourably to alternatives on the basis of full life cycle environmental impacts, and their environmental performance continues to improve.  In the past 10 years, industry has invested $8 billion to improve the environmental performance of refineries and the fuels they produce.

Looking ahead, optimizing the efficiency of conventionally fuelled vehicles provides the lowest cost alternative for GHG emission reductions for personal transportation.  For example, we need only look to Europe to see what can be accomplished through greater use of turbocharged diesel engines in the passenger vehicle fleet.

Petroleum-based fuels are clearly superior when it comes to evaluating overall suitability for transportation—they remain the best options to get you where you want to go.  They are reliable, convenient, and widely available through an established and comprehensive supply infrastructure.

Vehicle manufacturers and fuel providers have worked together to optimize fuel/vehicle performance.  On a full ‘systems’ basis that considers fuel costs, as well as incremental infrastructure and vehicle costs, they are the best option available—by far.  There is a reason why markets around the world have determined them to be the best energy sources to meet our transportation demands, for more than 100 years.  Indeed, much of the ongoing research and development work on alternative fuels focuses on making alternatives emulate the superior attributes of petroleum fuels.

It’s important that we make the right choices about our transportation energy future.  The stakes are high.  Wishful thinking is no substitute for rigorous due diligence and a thorough understanding of the options and their implications, including unintended consequences.  Our destination—a reliable, affordable and environmentally sustainable transportation system is too important.

Peter Boag

Peter Boag is President of the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute (CPPI), the national association of major Canadian companies involved in the refining, distribution and/or marketing of petroleum products for transportation, home energy and industrial uses.

Mr. Boag has a near 20-year track record of successful public policy advocacy and industry association leadership. He was appointed President of CPPI in 2007, having previously been the President & CEO of the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada.

As CPPI President, Mr. Boag provides executive leadership to a team of business and public policy professionals in CPPI’s national and three regional offices. CPPI work focuses on the development of public policy and regulation that serves the long term interests of the Canadian consumer and the Canadian petroleum industry, with emphasis on environment, health and safety issues.

Mr. Boag is a former military pilot; he served in the Canadian Forces from 1975 to 1982. Between 1982 and 1992, Mr. Boag was an aircraft accident investigator for the federal government.

Mr. Boag is a graduate of the University of Waterloo, and has a Masters degree in Business Administration from Queen’s University.

By: Michael Holden

As global awareness of the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change grows, international attention has increasingly focused on ways to reduce both the intensity and the volume of those emissions. On the positive side, this focus has led to tremendous investments in renewable energy sources, abatement technologies and conservation efforts around the globe. It has also led to marked decreases in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and emission intensity in many parts of the world.

On a more negative note, this awareness has cast a somewhat harsh spotlight on major global energy producers which are among the world’s leading sources of greenhouse gasses (on a per capita basis). This is true of Canada, and of Alberta’s oil sands in particular. The oil sands are among the most carbon-intensive (and water-intensive) sources of energy in the world.

To be sure, oil sands producers have made considerable progress in lowering GHG intensity over the years. According to data from Environment Canada, the emissions intensity of oil sands production in Alberta fell by 39% from 1990 to 2008.  Moreover, most future oil sands developments are expected to be in situ projects which are considerably less emissions-intensive compared to mining operations.

However, reductions in emissions intensity are not the same as an absolute decrease in output of greenhouse gasses. As new projects get underway and oil sands activity in Alberta continues to expand, the overall volume of greenhouse gas emissions will rise, as progress in lowering GHG intensity is more than offset by increased production levels.

Expansion of oil sands development, combined with factors such as Canada’s lack of progress on its international GHG abatement commitments; the absence of a national strategy on energy and the environment; and the lack of federal government leadership on major environmental policy initiatives, have meant that Canada’s international reputation on environmental issues is increasingly shaky.

This blackened reputation could have significant consequences for western Canadian energy producers. Vocal opposition in the United States to the proposed Keystone pipeline expansion, as well as resistance within Canada to the construction of pipelines to the West Coast, is in large part because many see these infrastructure projects as a catalyst for accelerated production of so-called “dirty oil.” For an industry dependent on its ability to access foreign markets, this resistance casts a shadow of uncertainty on future oil production and investment activity in Alberta and across the country.

As the source of most of Canada’s fossil fuel energy, it is therefore incumbent upon western Canada—and Alberta in particular—to improve on its environmental policy record to date. There are a host of policy options available to provincial and federal governments looking to reduce GHG emissions from energy production. These include regulation, cap-and-trade schemes and carbon taxes. There are also significant opportunities for investment in research and development into new environmental technologies (carbon capture and storage is one example where western Canada is already a leader). Not only would these technologies help to reduce the region’s environmental footprint and help to rebrand western Canada as a leader in abatement technologies, they also have the potential to spawn the development of a new industry in the region.

It is tempting to view Canada’s record on greenhouse gas emissions as an Alberta problem; after all, that province accounts for a full one third of the country’s total GHG emissions and is responsible for most of the increase in emissions over the past decade. However, it is important to note that the location of Canada’s energy endowments is, in some senses, an accident of geopolitics and cartography. Considering the importance of crude oil production to the national economy, the problem of greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts in Alberta (and, to a lesser extent, in Saskatchewan) are as much of a national issue as if fossil fuel resources were evenly distributed across the country.

In addition, it is important to remember that energy production in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and across Canada is a response to regional, national and global demand. While energy producers do have a pivotal role to play in reducing Canada’s overall emissions levels, energy consumers bear at least as much responsibility as they account for about two thirds of national emissions.

Alberta and Saskatchewan have perhaps the most room to improve when it comes to consumer-oriented policies related to energy efficiency and conservation. To be sure, energy production accounts for the majority of GHG emissions in those two provinces. However, even when producers are removed from the equation, Alberta and Saskatchewan still consume more energy, and thus emit more GHGs per capita, than any other province – often by a considerable margin.

For example, residential consumers in Alberta use 43% more energy per person than the national average. Similarly, commercial and public administration facilities in Saskatchewan and Alberta use 60% more and 70% more energy per person than the national average, respectively. These differences translate into a significant difference in consumer-generated GHG emissions as well.

Implementing policies that position Alberta and Saskatchewan as national leaders in conservation and efficiency offer a wide range of benefits to those provinces, and to the country as a whole. In addition to helping Canada achieve its international GHG-reduction commitments and potentially reducing costs for provincial energy consumers, there are reputational advantages as well.

In particular, a twofold strategy that sees Alberta move to the forefront of energy efficiency and conservation policy, while at the same time pursuing strategies aimed at minimizing the GHG emissions associated with oil production, could greatly improve its international reputation as an energy producer. Doing so has the potential to mollify critics of expanded oil sands production and lower resistance to infrastructure projects aimed at getting that oil to market.

By: Shawna Stirrett

The Canada-Asia Energy Cooperation Conference held on September 8, 2011 was hosted by the Canada West Foundation and the Asia-Pacific Foundation. The conference was organized to examine the web of linkages between Canada and Asia, with an emphasis on energy. It featured presentations from both the Alberta Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Energy, a Senator from the United States, key Canadian business leaders and top business people and experts from China, Japan, Korea and Thailand.

The conference was packed full of information and the clearest message of the day was that there is incredible opportunity for increased energy trade between Canada and Asia. Asian countries are actively seeking energy suppliers from countries like Canada—with ample energy resources, a stable government, and an open capital market—at the same time Canadian governments and businesses are looking to diversify their energy customers away from an almost exclusive trade relationship with the United States.

While the key message of opportunity was clear, three things through the course of the day stood out as significant for Canada’s trade relationship with Asia.

The first is how often Canadians seem to conflate “Asia” with “China.” In all the talk about the rise of China, we seem to have collectively forgotten about many of the other Asian countries that have different cultural, economic and political realities. These other counties were brought to the forefront during the day, particularly in the session on Asian perspectives on the Canadian energy sector, where attendees were treated to an assessment of the potential of trade relationships between Canada and China, Japan, Korea and Thailand.

The central message from this session was that each country has a unique energy reality that impacts how they view the Canadian market. The Japanese are currently dealing with the loss of 38 of their 54 nuclear reactors following the earthquake and tsunami in March 2011. They plan to deal with the resulting power shortages through increased imports of fossil fuels and investments in solar power. Korea, by contrast, is finding ways to become involved in the production side of oil and gas so that it can partially offset the financial strain of needing to import almost all of its fossil fuel energy sources.

The second noteworthy aspect from the conference was how far the conversation around trade with China has shifted in the last few years. In the past, a considerable portion of the conversation around trade with China focused on human rights and ideological differences between our two countries. At the present time, however, in the national conversation around energy there is virtually no discourse around if we should trade with China, instead, we are all too busy talking about how we can increase trade with China. The conversation has turned to the logistics of building pipelines to access the West Coast, LNG terminals and the need to build better trade relationships—a clear difference in only a few years time.

A third observation is how rarely people in Canada talk about energy relationships with a clear understanding of other countries’ strategic priorities. Canadians say things like, “if Americans’ don’t want our oil, well, we will just sell it to China!” That demonstrates an understanding of our energy needs—that is, the ability to sell our energy resources—but fails to take into account the strategic interests of the Chinese.

Victor Gao, Co-Chairman of China, Daiwa Capital Markets Hong Kong Ltd., the keynote speaker at the Canada West Foundation’s Community Dinner that followed the conference addressed this perspective. He highlighted, for example, how important it is for the Chinese to have Americans develop their domestic energy resources in order to create jobs and stimulate the economy. Now, why does the Chinese government care if Americans are out of jobs and their economy is in decline? For the simple reason that China is the single largest creditor of the United States government and any devaluation of American currency or economic strength will have a huge effect on China’s economic strength.

This is a perspective Canadians seem to rarely consider. We are so focused on our need to sell energy and the demographic and consumption changes happening around the world that we don’t always consider how complex and interconnected trade and political relationships are around the globe. It is unlikely, for example, that Canada’s relationship with the United States would be unaffected by an increased trade relationship between Asia and ourselves. If we want to navigate this change well, it will be imperative to understand the strategic priorities of all the countries involved.

These three things in combination—the tendency to conflate “Asia” with “China,” the increased desire to trade with China and the failure to consider the strategic interests of Asian countries—indicates that perhaps the most important thing we can do to improve our chances of developing a resilient and robust energy relationship with Asian countries is to increase our knowledge and understanding of Asia.

We need to stop seeing Asia as an open maw ready to gobble up any energy we send its way and start seeing it as a complex, globally connected and very established part of the world, one that we need to know much, much better if we hope to succeed as their partners in the trading of energy.

By: Michael Holden

As the Canada West Foundation highlighted in a study released earlier this year, western Canadian exporters are gradually shifting their focus away from the United States and are increasingly selling their goods in Asian markets.

Early data for 2011 show this trend continuing. Through the first six months of the year, western Canadian exports to Asia were up 23.3% compared to the same period last year, well above the growth rate for exports to the US (11.2%) or other non-US destinations (18.3%). In total, 18.2% of western Canadian exports from January to June 2011 went to Asian markets.

Leading the charge is BC. Through the first half of 2011, BC’s total exports were 14.0% higher compared to the first half of 2010. Exports to Asia, however, have risen at more than twice that rate, owing in part to strong growth in sales to China, Taiwan and South Korea.

This increase has not only helped to cement BC’s status as Canada’s largest exporting province to Asia, but, if the pattern established through the first six months hold true for the remainder of the year, BC will be the first province to reach a significant new milestone: it will export more to Asia than to the United States. From January to June 2011, BC shipped 43.2% of its merchandise exports to Asia, compared to 42.0% of sales going to the United States.

As we’re looking at just half a year’s worth of data, this feat is mostly symbolic at this point, but if the underlying trend continues, it could represent an important structural shift in how we think about the BC economy. What happens in Asia could be more important to the province’s economic outlook than what happens in the United States.

The other three western provinces are in no danger of crossing that threshold in the foreseeable future, but Asian markets continue to grow in importance for exporters on the prairies as well. Manitoba and Saskatchewan have seen increases of 39.0% and 25.4% in exports to Asia, respectively, through the first half of 2011. Both provinces now sell more than 20% of their total exports to that part of the world.

On the surface, Alberta appears to be something of an exception to this general trend. Not only are Alberta’s exports to Asia growing more slowly than any other province (7.6% through the first half of 2011), but the share of total exports going to Asia (7.5%) remains low as well. Only New Brunswick and Ontario send a smaller share of their exports to Asia.

The weakness in growth through 2011 to date is partly due to reduced sales of primary plastics and canola – two of Alberta’s largest exports to Asia. It remains to be seen if that reduction is a temporary dip or evidence of a longer-term trend.

But in terms of overall market share, Asia is far more important to Alberta than the figures suggest. Oil and gas make up more than half of Alberta’s total exports, but based on the infrastructure in place, Alberta oil and gas companies wishing to sell their products abroad have no real choice in where they can go: all roads – or, in this case, pipes – lead to the US.

Removing oil and gas from the equation gives us a chance to see where Alberta exporters sell their products when they have a choice of customer. When you do so, Alberta’s export mix begins to look a lot more like the other Prairie Provinces. In the first half of 2011, 15.7% of Alberta’s non-oil-and-gas exports went to Asia – not as much as in Saskatchewan or Manitoba, but still much higher than in any province outside western Canada.  

On Thursday, September 8, 2011, The Canada West Foundation and the Asia-Pacific Foundation are co-hosting the Canada-Asia Cooperation Conference and Dinner, which will look at the growing web of energy-related trade, investment, strategic and environmental linkages between Canada and Asia. For more details, click here.

By: Denise Carpenter

Given recent events in Japan, the first thing that anyone wants to know about Canadian nuclear is: Is it safe? The answer is yes, and I’ll tell you why.

Safety is our number one priority. Canada’s nuclear power operations have a proven track record of being among the safest in the world. They are highly monitored, stringently regulated and continuously improved through the daily efforts of qualified professionals who are committed to ensuring public safety. In over 45 years of operation there has not been a single significant incident at a Canadian facility.

Our industry continues to make investments and improvements as part of our ‘Safety First’ culture. In response to the Fukushima accident, Bruce Power has taken concrete action on a number of fronts following the events in Japan. For example, they recently announced the re-organization of their emergency response organization, which involves approximately 400 employees who form the basis of their industry-leading emergency response capability. Building on lessons learned from the Fukushima event is a top priority for our industry.

At Ontario Power Generation (OPG), a four-month examination of its nuclear operations following the events in Japan uncovered no major safety issues. OPG carefully studied the safety of its facilities and re-evaluated the potential of unlikely events such earthquakes, severe flooding, tornadoes, hurricanes, fire and ice storms having major impacts on nuclear operations. The studies showed that the plants continued to be safe, but as part of continuous improvement OPG will make investments to increase safety margins during these unlikely events. This includes accelerating the installation of hydrogen recombiners and the purchase of additional back up generation and diesel pumps.

Currently there are 17 operational CANDU reactors in Canada that supply 15% of all electricity in Canada. This 15% means the potential emission of 90 million tonnes of greenhouse gases each year is avoided. Imagine, without nuclear power, if that same amount of electricity was fossil-fuel generated, Canada’s total GHG emission would increase by a whopping 12%.

Canada’s nuclear facilities are located in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick. Communities in these provinces are benefiting not only from an available, reliable and clean source of energy, but an affordable one as well. According to studies conducted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a multi-country organization working to further growth and development of its member nations, the overall cost to the consumer of nuclear power over the life of a nuclear power facility is similar to that of large-scale hydro, natural gas and coal, and much lower than wind and solar.

What about the rest of the country, you might be wondering. What are the benefits of nuclear for the rest of the country not currently powered by nuclear? Power generation is only one of the many great things about nuclear, and it isn’t only Canadians who benefit from the Canadian nuclear industry, both today and historically, what with the countless Canadian innovations in the field.

The Canadian nuclear industry provides a broad spectrum of products and services that benefit Canadians and people around the world. The application of nuclear science improves the health and well-being of us all through nuclear medicine and food safety technologies. Innovation in nuclear science is also being applied to address a number of societal challenges such as public health and transportation.

Our nuclear industry is made up of over 70,000 Canadians employed directly or indirectly in exploring and mining uranium, generating electricity, advancing nuclear medicine, and promoting Canada’s worldwide leadership in science and technology innovation. Through the efforts of these Canadians, our nuclear industry is a $6.6 billion per year industry, contributing $1.5 billion in tax revenues and $1.2 billion in export revenues.

Our commitment to public safety and environmental stewardship includes the safe, secure and responsible long-term management of all of the used fuel produced by Canadian nuclear power plants.  Used fuel is initially stored in secure water-filled bays on site of the nuclear power plants for 5 –10 years. It is then placed in large concrete and steel containers safely stored on site. In order to address the long-term care of Canada’s used nuclear fuel, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) was established by nuclear energy producers in 2002 in accordance with the federal Nuclear Fuel Waste Act.

NWMO has worked with industry, research and government organizations to develop a management approach for the long-term care of Canada’s used nuclear fuel, including development of a deep geological repository in a suitable rock formation. Initial stages of the plan are now being implemented. NWMO’s plan and its implementation is highly monitored and regulated by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to protect the health, safety and security of people and our environment. In fact, radioactive waste facilities are monitored by the licensees and by the provincial and federal authorities, and they are kept extremely secure.

Let’s see, we’ve covered: safety, zero-emission power generation, affordability, contributions to medicine, heath, science and technology innovation, various industries, and the Canadian economy, and talked about how we clean up after ourselves. These reasons all illustrate why nuclear energy should be considered not only in the discussions about a Canadian energy strategy, but also as a component for a sustainable energy future.

I’d love to continue this discussion with you. We have a blog at TalkNuclear.ca and we talk nuclear on Facebook and Twitter. Come join the conversation about all things nuclear and energy related.

If you want to know more about the daily benefits of nuclear beyond energy generation, visit our new microsite. Find out how the future is NU.

Denise Carpenter

Denise Carpenter was appointed President and CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Association (CNA) effective November 23, 2009.

Prior to her role at CNA, Ms. Carpenter was Senior Vice President, Public and Government Affairs, with EPCOR Utilities Inc. While at EPCOR, she was responsible for the organization’s positioning, reputation strategy and communications that paved the way for the company’s transformation into a North American power and water company. She was also responsible for influencing public policy in areas such as climate change/clean air, investment in power transmission infrastructure, the development of near-zero emission power generation from coal, and various public/private partnerships.

Before joining EPCOR in 2003, Ms. Carpenter was Executive Vice President and General Manager of Western Canada operations for Weber Shandwick Worldwide. She has made major contributions to Canadian companies seeking to launch, grow, protect and re-position their brands over more than 20 years.

Ms Carpenter has extensive experience in the governance of post-secondary institutions and community organizations, as a member and organization leader. She has been honoured by Global TV as a Woman of Vision; by the YWCA with a Woman of Distinction Award; and has twice been named one of Alberta’s 50 most influential people by Alberta Venture magazine.