Canada West Foundation Blog

By: Stephanie Shewchuk

Composting has never been the most enticing activity for a majority of people. It can seem a grubby, soggy and all-around dirty process that yields, well, something that looks a lot like dirt. In the past, it’s been relegated to the domain of green-thumbed gardeners and eco-warriors, but as environmental consciousness becomes more de rigueur, composting has hit the mainstream.

While many of the larger municipalities across Canada have implemented civic composting programs, not everyone has jumped on the bandwagon. Naysayers cite the apparent messiness, lack of space and the inconvenience of composting bins as some of the reasons composting hasn’t caught on. People living in smaller spaces with limited access to a yard or private green space may think that composting is more trouble than it’s worth.

But it remains that individual composting can still yield great environmental returns even if one doesn’t have much personal use for compost. Parks and municipal green space benefit from community composting efforts and the increasing number of opportunities for urban agriculture mean that compost can be put to good use across the city. At the end of the day, composting diverts waste away from the landfill—an action that yields widespread environmental benefits regardless of where in the city the compost ends up.

So the question is, how can more people be persuaded to compost, whether for personal benefit or otherwise? The answer lies in the design and execution of composting programs and of the composting bins themselves. Curbside composting makes it easier to send food scraps and yard waste to a central facility for processing. Programs of this type are possible in most municipalities. In some cities, however, curbside composting is not offered to tenants in condos or apartment buildings because of collection issues around the size of standard composting bins.

For more people to compost, it must be easy, quick and clean, and appropriate to a variety of dwellings. Vancouver, for example, offers worm composters suitable for apartment use at a subsidized cost. City-driven action and further education around the process will increase the number of people composting. Just as recycling wasn’t always automatic in households, composting will become more popular over time with well-designed collection programs and better bins.

Composting is one example of a tool that individuals, communities and cities could be using more as a way to improve the urban environment. For a more comprehensive list of urban environmental tools check out our latest report Tools of the Trade: Urban Environmental Improvement Options.

By: Sheila Harmatiuk, Manager of Government Relations, City of Regina

Canada’s first ever National Infrastructure Summit (NIS), hosted by the City of Regina in January 2011, was unique in many ways. One reason is that the conference gathered such a wide spectrum of participants from the private, non-profit, and public sectors. The summit attracted hundreds of delegates, representing diverse industries such as engineering, architecture, construction, and finance. Academics, tax specialists, municipal and infrastructure policy experts, and think tanks were also in attendance. The public sector was represented by elected officials and civil servants from all three orders of government—municipal, provincial, and federal.

By all measures, the summit was a huge success, and work is in full swing for the second National Infrastructure Summit to be held in Regina on September 10-12, 2012. The success of the 2011 National Infrastructure Summit and the importance of the coming 2012 Summit are clear. The 350 delegates who attended the 2011 event were surveyed, and 94% indicated their interest in attending the 2012 Summit. Further, attendees believed that the momentum created in 2011 needs to be continued and expanded. In particular, the discussion needs to move from the theoretical to the practical, with the focus placed on global models and innovative examples that are being tried, tested, and proving successful.

At the 2012 Summit, delegates will participate and engage in discussions and workshops led by leaders and experts in various fields such as global best practices in infrastructure management and new approaches to funding, planning, building, and maintaining our critical public assets.

2012 NIS is designed to expand upon five major themes:

1. Defining the Need: When defining infrastructure needs, it’s important to have an accurate inventory of all assets and to properly determine, measure, and understand their current condition. This theme will address practical actions and best   practices such as defining appropriate levels of service and identifying new solutions to implement sustainable infrastructure asset management.
2. Financing the Opportunities: This theme hones in on innovative options to finance infrastructure in municipalities and strategies and solutions that can produce cost efficiencies for infrastructure at any age of its life cycle, while also maintaining service levels expected by citizens.
3. Politics of Infrastructure: Municipal leaders and infrastructure managers face a number of “real-world” challenges when making and executing decisions about local infrastructure investment. This theme focuses on how municipal leaders can best determine local priorities, communicate infrastructure needs, assess and evaluate funding options, and earn public support for infrastructure investment decisions.
4. Innovation: Canada’s public infrastructure is aging, with some systems over a century old. Often, the mindset behind infrastructure design is even more archaic. This theme focuses on innovation—designing and implementing innovative, lower cost, and more sustainable methods of providing neighbourhood infrastructure. Innovation is not just about more funding to do more innovative things, but finding new ways of doing what we do now, but doing it better.
5. Citizen Engagement: Citizen engagement is based on the premise that people should have, and want to have, greater influence on decisions that affect them. True engagement is more than just asking for opinions—it’s about ensuring that issues are framed authentically and sincerely. Informing, educating and gathering public input is critical to the successful implementation of new initiatives, projects, and processes.

A very unique aspect of the 2012 Summit are the two urban renewal competitions that are being held in conjunction with the conference.  The competitions have been tagged with the title Morph My City.

The first competition invites submissions for a long-term and step-by-step design of a new neighbourhood. Beginning with a canola field—an undeveloped, unserviced section of land within the city of Regina—the competition will be won by those who draw up the best plan to build-out a creative, innovative, and sustainable 21^stcentury urban neighbourhood.

The second competition involves submission of a conceptual design plan to renew a pre-existing neighbourhood—to turn it into an innovative, long-term, and financially sustainable neighbourhood—again within the City of Regina.

The finalists for both competitions will present their submissions during the summit, and an expert panel of judges will choose a winning submission for each competition. To date, 2012 Summit organizers have received exposure to over 10,000 interested parties through the Morph My City website. Interest has come from all over the world, including Canada, the United States, Australia, India, Mexico, and Egypt.

Alongside the Morph My City competition, the 2012 Summit has yet another added feature—an Invitational Trade Show that will showcase innovative tools for resolving infrastructure issues.

Without doubt, the Summit is one of the most anticipated infrastructure events for 2012. For further details on registration, guest speakers, and accommodations, please visit the 2012 National Infrastructure Summit website at www.NISummit2012.ca or contact Sheila Harmatiuk, Manager of Government Relations at (306) 777-6769 or sharmatiuk@regina.ca.

*The last day to receive a discount on your registration is May 31, 2012.*

By: Robbie Rolfe

The results of the Alberta provincial election that took place on April 23, 2012 generated a lot of commentary on the gap between what the polls were saying and what actually happened on election day. While this is an interesting puzzle, it is perhaps more important to look at another gap—namely, the chasm between votes cast and seats won.

There is a large differential between the percentage of the vote some parties received and the percentage of seats they won. The table below shows seat share minus vote share by region. A negative number indicates where a party had a smaller share of seats than votes while a positive number indicates where a party had a larger share of the seats than votes. When it comes to the first and second place parties (the Progressive Conservative and Wildrose parties), the differentials are quite large.



The Wildrose party had strong support across the province. Nevertheless, it came a close second or third in many ridings. To modify the cliché, close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, not in the single member plurality races we use to select our representatives in Alberta and across the country. So despite garnering more than a third of the popular vote in the province, the Wildrose party won only a fifth of the seats.

The Progressive Conservative party, on the other hand, won about 23 more seats than it would have if each party had received the same proportion of seats as its proportion of the popular vote. In many cases, the PCs won with a plurality (the most votes) rather than a majority.

Another way to measure the gap between vote share and seat share that typifies single member plurality systems is the least squares index, a common measure of proportionality used in political science. The scale runs from 0 to 100 with higher numbers indicating a less proportional result. This measure allows us to compare proportionality across elections. For the recent Alberta election, its value is about 22. To provide some context, that is a more disproportional result than any Canadian federal election since 1945. (This includes Brian Mulroney’s 1984 victory, where his party won 75% of the seats with 50% of the votes, while the Liberal and New Democratic parties’ seat shares were about half of their popular vote shares.)

Proportionality matters. Arguably, when the distribution of seats in the legislature does not accurately match the preferences of the voters expressed in the general election, it is less likely to pass laws reflecting the diverse preferences of the population. In other words, the single member plurality system we use in Canada tends to distort the representativeness of our legislatures.

To create a better match between votes and seats, we would need to implement some form of proportional representation. In these systems, seats are allocated based on a candidate or party’s share of the popular vote rather than on which candidate comes first in each riding. It may even have other positive effects (for example, it may increase the number of women and ethnic minority representatives in the legislature, two historically underrepresented groups).

Of course, a change of this sort will also have costs. For example, it will likely mean the end of majority government. In order to get a majority in a proportional representation system, one party will have to get very close to half the vote in order to get more than half the seats. This could be costly because majority governments are seen as stable, strong and able to implement their campaign promises. Voters can also identify responsibility easily and hold governments accountable when one party controls the levers of power. It is also easy for the electorate to turn majority governments out in a single member plurality system, as small movements in the popular vote can result in large changes in seats. (Some also argue that majority governments are better for economic performance, though there appears to be no statistically significant link in practice between the electoral system and economic performance. See, for example, Arend Lijphart’s 1999 book, which compares different democratic institutional types.)

Nevertheless, we can discuss and decide on a system that works for us. There are many options we can choose (we can even retain single member districts). We can minimize the costs and maximize the benefits.

We cannot do that, however, without talking about it—it is time to grapple with this elephant in our political living room.
 

By: Patrice LeBlanc

Canada, like many other countries, has established a comprehensive system for the purpose of regulating the effects of energy development projects on the health and safety of people and the environment. This system includes numerous federal, provincial and territorial laws and policies that define requirements for environmental assessment, regulatory review and permitting and Aboriginal consultation processes.  These laws and policies have most often been built one atop the other over several decades without consideration of how they fit together within a comprehensive framework, resulting in a complex and often duplicative system.  For users of that system this complexity has created uncertainty and time-delays.  Moreover, the environment has not necessarily benefitted- cumbersome processes tend to stifle creativity around how to address environmental issues.  And perhaps of most significance in difficult economic times, the complexity and duplication has added costs.  This assessment is not just a complaint by Canadians:  according to the World Economic Forum’s 2011-2012 Global Competitiveness Report, system inefficiency is cited as the single largest barrier to doing business in Canada.

While efforts have been made in recent years to address some of these long-standing systemic issues, these have been limited in scope to some one-off tinkering that ignores the inter-connectedness of the overall framework. What is required is a “whole of government” or governments (federal, provincial and territorial) approach to reform the laws and policies that govern the environmental assessment, regulatory review and permitting, and Aboriginal consultation processes. The urgency of such reform is becoming even more critical given the reduced resources most governments have available.

While there is agreement on the need for reforming these processes, there are some who argue that such reform will diminish the level of environmental protection afforded under current laws and policies. This begs the question: will such reform result in an end to the standards of environmental protection provided in current laws and policies, or will such reform lead to the beginning of a system of regulating the environmental effects of development projects in more cost-efficient and smarter ways while achieving better environmental outcomes?

The federal government took an important step towards reforming its regulatory system in 2007 when it established the Major Projects Management Office (MPMO). With the creation of the MPMO, it set out to devise and support a new approach aimed at establishing a more effective, accountable, transparent and timely regulatory system applied to the review, assessment and approval of major development projects while achieving better environmental outcomes. The MPMO was assigned a dual mandate. One focused on providing for overarching project coordination, management and accountability for major resource development projects within the context of the existing federal regulatory review processes. Much of the work of MPMO on this mandate has been directed at establishing a more transparent, predictable, timely and effective approach to the review of major resource development projects.

The other mandate was to undertake research and identify options aimed at driving further performance improvements to the federal review processes applied to resource development projects. This led to collaborative policy research and analysis aimed at driving system-wide legislative, regulatory and policy changes to the federal regulatory system and improving alignment of federal and provincial environmental assessment, regulatory reviews and permitting and Aboriginal consultation processes. The results of this work formed the basis for first step initiatives in the federal government’s efforts to reform the processes that made up its regulatory system. This began with the introduction in Budget 2007 of a target of cutting in half the regulatory review period from four to two years. The government followed with the introduction of targeted legislative amendments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and a new participant funding program to strengthen and enhance the National Energy Board (NEB) and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) review processes in Budget 2010.

While these first step initiatives were important, it was recognized that more fundamental changes were still required to the existing legislation and policies in order to fully address the systemic issues. A different culture of management was envisioned for legislation and policies from:

• Where the “rules of the game” and timelines are unclear and open to interpretation, to defining in law clear results-based rules and reasonable timelines
• Duplicative processes shared across jurisdictions to a “one project one review” approach implemented by a  “single best placed regulator”
• Broad application to projects with insignificant risks to the environment, to a focus on projects that pose higher risks to the environment
• Command and control to more flexible and innovative voluntary tools and instruments
• A site specific approach to a place-based approach using boundaries that reflect an ecosystem and cumulative effects point of view
• A government-driven approach to regulating, to one that embraces a collaborative approach based on shared responsibility and accountability with the regulated community, non-government organizations, Aboriginal groups, academia and the public
• A focus on process to a focus on achieving better environmental outcomes for Canadians
• Non-enforceable conditions of authorizations, to enforceable conditions

The announcement in Budget 2012 of a responsible resource development plan would appear to be the beginning of the current government’s legislated expression of this different approach.

The Honourable Joe Oliver, Minister of Natural Resources, in a recent announcement, identified several specific changes.  Key amongst these is the decision to consolidate responsibilities previously held by more than 40 organizations in 3 agencies:  the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, the National Energy Board and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) and the decision to reduce duplication by establishing equivalency with provincial environmental assessment processes. The announcement stated that legally binding timelines will also be a feature of the new regulatory system, for both environmental assessments and key regulatory review and permitting processes (including the Fisheries Act, Species at Risk Act (SARA), Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA), the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), and the Nuclear Safety and Control Act (NSCA)).

Other changes include improving compliance and environmental protection for major projects by allowing for longer term authorizations with enforceable conditions under SARA; designation of a lead department or agency as a single Crown consultation coordinator for specific project reviews; the authorization of administrative monetary penalties for violations; and changes to the Fisheries Act that would enable the Minister to enter into agreements with interested groups to allow them to undertake measures to enhance fisheries protection.

The amendments (and the cultural shift behind them) speak to a very fundamental change in the “how” of dealing with regulatory process. The real question is whether they also reflect a difference in the “what”.

While the federal government has set out its agenda for putting in place a more efficient regulatory system for Canada, the connection of that agenda to its explicitly identified conservation interests has yet to be made clear. The opportunity exists, but this will require a better definition of that conservation agenda.  Within it, there will be a need to consider adopting modern concepts of ecosystem-based management, adaptive management, results-based regulations, biodiversity offsets, conservation banking, integrated resource planning and management. It will also need to address the requirements of ensuring the availability and convenient access to the scientific data, information and knowledge required to support sound decisions about regulating environmental effects.

The responsibility is not all on government however: a paradigm shift in corporate culture will also be required that will encourage more strategic and integrative thinking, planning and actions; greater collaboration and partnership; and new modes of policy framing and forms of environmental governance. Such new forms of governance should be able to allow for better engagement between those who set law and policy and those who respond to it. An important element of this will be to create strong linkages backed up by negotiated agreements with clear accountabilities between and among existing government organizations and agencies and networks of non-government actors—other levels of government, Aboriginal groups and other interested stakeholders. Finally, performance measures against which to determine if action taken in managing environmental effects is moving towards achieving the desired outcome of sustainability are critical to such a shift; otherwise it will be difficult to determine if we are moving along the continuum from where we currently are to where we need to go [to attain sustainability].

While the federal government has taken some important steps to reform the processes it applies to regulate the environmental effects of development projects, there is much more required if this is to be the beginning of a new system that will be more cost-efficient while achieving better environmental outcomes.

Canada’s energy sector, in particular, can make a significant contribution to shaping the reform of these processes. It can take a leadership role in engaging others in a discussion as to what is required and how best to deliver a regulatory system that allows for cost efficient and smarter ways of implementation, while achieving better environmental outcome for all.

Patrice LeBlanc

Patrice LeBlanc joined SENES in 2010 as an Environmental and Habitat Management Specialist after some 40 years of experience in developing and implementing environmental and fisheries resource assessment and management legislation, programs, policies and guidelines with governments, industry and consultants. Since joining SENES he has been involved in developing positions for industry on reform of the Fisheries Act and guidelines on habitat banking, fisheries offsets, and fish screens for water intakes as well as the preparation of an EIA for a Nickel mine in Tanzania.

Patrice has some 30 years of experience in senior positions with Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. While at the Agency, he played a leading role in the development of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) and its regulations and practitioners’ guides; the Cabinet Directive on the Strategic Environmental Assessment of Policies and Programs; the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on EIA in a Trans-boundary Context the development and delivery of training on the application of CEAA both in Canada and other countries. He led the 3-year International Study in the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment.

With DFO, Patrice held senior level positions with the Habitat Management Program in the region and at headquarters. He was instrumental in the development of the Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat and related operational policies, guidelines and practices to guide the application of provisions of the Fisheries Act and the requirements to apply CEAA and other EA processes in the North, Aboriginal consultations and Species at Risk Act prior to issuance of authorizations. He also led a number of national initiatives to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the regulatory review and approval process under the Fisheries Act. Patrice continued to play a key role in the development and application of CEAA through his responsibilities for leading the conduct and review of environmental assessments of a wide range of projects under CEAA; preparation of the department’s position on the five-year review of CEAA; development of policies, guidelines and practices and delivery of training courses on the application of CEAA.

Patrice has also held senior positions with Ontario Hydro, Nova Scotia Power Corporation, two consulting firms and the Governments of Trinidad and Tobago and The Bahamas where he led the preparation and review of environmental assessments for a wide range of projects in Canada, Trinidad and Tobago and The Bahamas.

Patrice has published and presented over 100 technical, scientific and policy papers on environmental and fisheries resource planning, assessment and management and advised other governments on the development of environmental assessment and management laws, policies and guidelines, including Japan, China, Denmark, the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago and the Commonwealth of The Bahamas.

By: Shawna Stirrett

There are many benefits to be had from improving the environmental performance of Canadian cities. Residents can benefit from improved aesthetics, lower water treatment costs, higher property values, increased air quality, the attraction and retention of skilled workers and much more. General environmental benefits can include reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, improved water and air quality, less fragmented ecosystems and improved biodiversity.

And the good news is that we have a pretty good sense of how these environmental improvements can be realized. There are many different tools for, and principles of, creating more sustainable cities that individuals, businesses, communities and municipal governments can employ. Outlining these tools is the focus of Canada West Foundation’s most recent report Tools of the Trade: Urban Environmental Improvement Options.

The real challenge, however, isn’t in knowing what to do but rather in implementing the good ideas that we already have. Many people are well aware of the environmental benefits of recycling, composting, improved energy efficiency and transit-oriented development. The fact remains, though, that we are not using these tools as much as we could in Canadian cities for myriad reasons.

Let’s take, as an example, a very simple environmental tool like the use of rain barrels to harvest rainfall.

Rain barrels are used to capture and store rainwater for later use on lawns and gardens. The environmental and economic benefits of rain barrels are clear. Using rainwater is better for your lawn and garden because it is not chlorinated and contains many of the minerals that your soil needs for healthy plant growth. Rain barrels also save money as you are not paying for water to be treated, transported and metered by the city. It’s a clear environmental and economic win-win.

So, given that, why wouldn’t everyone use rain barrels?

Well, in the spirit of full disclosure, I have to confess I do not have a rain barrel. I’m not trying to be hypocritical, and I would love to have one, but I live in a condo and our condo board does not allow rain barrels because they are unsightly and ruin the grass and I don’t have enough space on my patio for both a rain barrel and a barbeque.

I also find that I’m not alone in this. Using a very informal survey methodology (I asked my friends on Facebook), I have discovered that while only a few of my friends actually use rain barrels currently, almost everyone wants to use them. For those not using them, their reasons include laziness, aesthetics, cost of the rain barrel and living in a condo or apartment. The most frequently cited reason was living in a condo or an apartment building.

This raises the question for me: if we want to encourage higher density living and smaller carbon footprints, then why are we not designing environmental products that can be used by a variety of people in different types of housing?

Conventional rain barrels can hold about 45 gallons of water, are made of plastic, cost around $70 and come in a couple different colour options. While there is no question that these rain barrels work for many people, they also don’t work for many others as my survey and personal experience testifies. Rain barrels are really big, for starters, meaning that unless you have a house or a very large deck they are impractical. They are also somewhat awkward to use. The downspouts are located at the bottom and they often have to be positioned on cinder blocks so that you can access the water inside them. Finally, they are ugly and do little for the overall aesthetic of your yard and garden.

If we really want more people to use rain barrels as a way to make cities more environmentally friendly, we need to think about the full picture. It’s not going to be enough to tell people they should be using rain barrels, we need to be thinking about why they aren’t and designing solutions that are holistic and practical. We need to remember that “Good design is not about color, style or trends—but instead about thoughtfully considering the user, the experience, the social context and the impact of an object on the surrounding environment” (Inhabitat).

For a good example of how good design can change our relationship with environmental products, check out some innovative rain barrels by clicking here.
 

By: Casey Vander Ploeg, Senior Policy Analyst

The benefits of urban brownfield development are numerous and significant, breathing new life into old neighbourhoods, increasing local property values and land productivity, and mitigating sprawl. There is also a strong infrastructure connection. Brownfields sit upon an existing network of roads, sidewalks, lighting, water mains, and wastewater lines that is not being fully utilized. Brownfield redevelopment brings that existing infrastructure back on-line, often at a lower cost than building and operating new networks in far-flung suburbs.

But—and there always seems to a “but” when it comes to these things—brownfields often represent a huge environmental risk in the form of contaminated soil. Thus, brownfield redevelopment suffers from a negative public image and the potentially huge costs of cleaning up “dirty dirt.”

Last December in the first “Dealing with ‘Dirty Dirt’” blog, I reported on a company called Ground Effects Environmental Services (GEE) which developed a suite of new technologies to remediate polluted soil, ground water, and even air. But GEE is not alone in working on better ways to treat contamination.

Dr. Steve Siciliano is a professor at the University of Saskatchewan’s College of Engineering, specializing in soil sciences. Siciliano is at the centre of a unique partnership with Communities of Tomorrow, Stantec Consulting Ltd., and Mitacs—a national non-profit, working to spur innovation by building partnerships with private companies, government, and academia.

The research partnership is developing a new technology to test soil and measure any contamination or toxicity with the help of the lowly earthworm.

In the lab, Siciliano is mimicking the digestive processes of earthworms to determine the degree of toxicity in soil samples. The SEG (Simulated Earthworm Gut) test is being developed to supplement existing technology in the field, which is time consuming, expensive, and sometimes uses live animal testing.

“The SEG test indicates the relative risk to ecological receptors and reflects soil quality. Soil quality is critical as humans, animals, and ecosystem services are impacted when degradation of soil quality occurs,” said Siciliano in the Innovation Impact Report: Simulated Earthworm Gut. “Quicker and more accurate safety testing reduces costs and speeds up business development.”

As a result of consultation and funding from Communities of Tomorrow, the dollars behind the research have been doubled and three graduate students are now also involved.

The importance of such developments is significant. Soil testing is critical to the practice of risk assessment—determining the liability of landowners for any soil pollution and the potential cost of cleaning it up. It is absolutely critical to brownfield redevelopment.

Siciliano is investigating the effectiveness of the new SEG testing protocol on soils polluted with diesel and other hydrocarbons. It has already been demonstrated to be effective for assessing soils contaminated with metals.

The SEG process is proving to be faster than other types of testing, and can save a company up to 50% of the current cost of soil toxicity testing. As a partner in the effort, Stantec is looking to employ the new technology and expand its risk assessment activities, and Siciliano and the University of Saskatchewan are looking to train students so that more risk assessment can happen locally within Saskatchewan.

Siciliano’s work is a great example of the benefits that accrue from innovation and new technologies. Innovation results in systems and process that are better, faster, and less expensive. That equates to more efficiency and higher productivity. Whenever that happens, resources such as time and money can be employed elsewhere, expanding the total amount of goods and services produced in the economy. That’s investment. That’s productivity. And, that’s how an economy grows.

Dr. Siciliano said it even better.

“Environmental liability should never stop economic growth. It just needs to be a cost associated with doing business. Our job is to reduce that cost so that more business can happen.”

To read the Innovation Impact Report: Simulated Earthworm Gut, click here.

By: Robert Roach

There are two main ways of addressing the fact that Canada is a collection of diverse regions.

The first is to embrace this fact as a fundamental strength and seek ways to work together and support one another. If we respect our differences and build on our similarities, a strong, united, dynamic and great nation is the result. Taking this path is not easy; it requires empathy, sacrifice, the ability to see beyond narrow perspectives, a willingness to compromise and an abiding commitment to the belief that Canada is strongest when all of its regions are thriving.

The second option is all too common and involves playing one region (or city or industry) of the country off of another for short-term gain, out of jealousy or because of ignorance. This approach sees the different parts of this great nation as competitors locked in a zero-sum game in which one region triumphs as the expense of the others. The result is bickering, missed opportunities, counterproductive animosity and a frayed national fabric. We can do better.

Politicians, business leaders, journalists, policy wonks and citizens from all parts of the country sometimes default to the second option. Most recently, Thomas Mulcair has said a number of things that focus on what divides Canada rather than what unites it. His remarks have been critiqued—and rightly so!—but we have to be careful not to let them become more fuel for the fire of division.

I have heard Albertans blame Quebec for Canada’s problems. I have heard people in Ontario berate life on the Prairies. I have heard people from Toronto tell tourists to avoid Calgary because it is ugly and full of rednecks. I have heard people in BC complain about EI recipients in the Maritimes. On top of these taunts and insults, there are old grudges against eastern banks, the oil sands is blamed for everything from the common cold to global warming and there are far too many Canadians who think breaking up the country is a good idea.

As we react to the recent wave of regional tension, it is worth considering that we are all better off working together as a country of strong regions rather than throwing stones at each other in an attempt to score points in a game with no real winner.

By: Michael Holden

Last time, Michael Holden highlighted some of the information and key findings of the Canada West Foundation’s recently-released publication, State of the West: Energy – 2012 Western Canadian Energy Trends, focusing on energy trade and transportation in the region. This week, he continues his summary of those findings with a discussion of the economic impact of energy sector activity.

The energy sector makes a significant contribution to economic prosperity in western Canada. The entire range of energy-related activities—from initial exploration and feasibility analyses of new energy projects through to the sale and delivery of final energy products added $55.8 billion to the regional economy in 2010, equivalent to for 13.6% of total economic output in western Canada.

Most of that activity takes place in Alberta. At $40.1 billion in 2010, Alberta generates almost as much value from the energy sector as does the rest of Canada combined. Energy directly accounted for 22.6% of provincial gross domestic product (GDP) that year.

BC has the second-largest energy sector in the West, with total GDP of $7.8 billion in 2010, followed by Saskatchewan at $5.7 billion and Manitoba at $2.1 billion. However, in terms of its importance to provincial economic output, the energy sector in Saskatchewan ranks well above that of BC and Manitoba. In Saskatchewan, the energy sector made up 14.5% of provincial GDP in 2010. The corresponding figures for Manitoba and BC were considerably lower, at 5.3% and 5.1%, respectively.

Although the energy sector is not as labour intensive as many other industries, it is still a major employer in the West. Energy and mining directly employed an estimated 192,300 western Canadians in 2010, largely in jobs that are among the highest-paying in Canada. Average weekly earnings in energy-related industries exceed the national average by a considerable margin. In particular, oil and gas extraction pays the highest average wages of any industry in Canada, at $2,218 per week (including overtime) in 2010.

However, the true impact of the energy sector in the West runs far deeper. Its $55.8-billion contribution to western Canadian GDP in 2010 does not include the indirect and induced effects into other sectors in the region. Nor, for that matter, does it include the spillover effects into other provinces in central and Atlantic Canada.

Business and professional services, engineering and design, construction, manufacturing and a host of other industries also benefit from the presence of energy-related activities in western Canada. These effects are, unfortunately, not reflected in major economic indicators like employment and GDP.  Other effects are missing as well. For example, the profits and wages generated by energy sector activity also feed back into the economy through increased retail sales of goods and services. While these impacts are concentrated in the West, they can be felt across the country.

Provincial governments in western Canada also benefit from the energy sector through tax revenues, as well as through resource royalties and Crown land sales and leases. These latter revenue sources in particular boost the fiscal capacities of provincial governments in the region, allowing them to provide higher levels of services at comparatively lower levels of direct taxation compared to many other provinces in Canada.

The wealth generated by the energy sector also benefits governments outside the region. The federal government collects far more revenue per capita from Alberta than from any other province—revenue that is used to finance spending across the country. This fiscal transfer is not the result of discriminatory tax policies against Alberta, but simply reflects the fact that wages, employment and corporate activity in Alberta are proportionately higher than anywhere else in Canada. Furthermore, the royalties generated from resource extraction in the West (which accrue only to the provincial governments), also benefit other provinces by raising their federally-funded equalization entitlements.

While the energy sector provides tremendous economic benefits to western Canada, the region’s energy wealth brings with it a number of risks and challenges as well. Perhaps the most important of these is the fact that the region is vulnerable to the boom-bust cycle associated with energy production, especially in the oil and gas sector. This issue is of particular concern in Alberta and Saskatchewan, which currently benefit the most from oil and gas activity.

Another challenge facing the region is the need to effectively communicate the extent to which western Canadian energy development benefits all of Canada. Recently, the opposite argument has been gaining traction. Various commentators and political leaders are suggesting that, by driving up the value of the Canadian dollar, oil production in the West is directly responsible for the loss of manufacturing jobs in central Canada. The implication is that the only cure for what ails Ontario is to ratchet down energy production in the West.

There is no doubt that a strong dollar (influenced by petroleum exports) is adding to the competitiveness and productivity challenges facing the manufacturing sector in Ontario. However, energy resources in the West create a wealth of opportunity, both within the region and across the country.  Effective communication of how energy developments in western Canada benefit all Canadians could go a long way toward ensuring that Canadians view the West’s energy wealth as a national asset that provides national benefit.

The following column is written by Gord Hume, President of Hume Communications Inc., former Councillor of the City of London, ON, and author of “Cultural Planning for Creative Communities” and “Taking Back Our Cities” for LetsTOC.

When Casey Vander Ploeg and the team at the Canada West Foundation and Communities of Tomorrow approached me about writing a column for the Let’sTOC series, I instantly agreed. The dialogue that both organizations are encouraging is another important step in building stronger cities and changing the way municipalities operate and are funded. That’s a critical theme I explore in my latest book, Taking Back Our Cities. 

This is the first of what will be a series of regular columns on LetsTOC. My columns will look at issues ranging from the infrastructure crisis in Canada and how municipalities function, to how we can improve the structure and relationships between the six levels of government in Canada.

My reputation as a blunt-spoken veteran of 13 years in public office, and four decades of interest in municipal government and national politics through my career in the media, provide a unique perspective. I will provide a clear-eyed look at key issues and opportunities. You may not always agree, and that’s just fine. But, we do need to change the conversation and encourage dialogue in this country about how we can build stronger communities.

In my speeches and media interviews, which in the past month alone have literally stretched from Nanaimo, BC to Gander, NL, there is a consistent theme coming back to me—the current system isn’t working and we need to change if our cities are to compete more effectively in the global economy.

With 80% of Canadians now living in an urban setting, how we build, rejuvenate, create, and grow our towns and cities is critical to our national prosperity. What goes on in our communities combines with natural resource extraction and the aqua and agricultural industries to generate most of Canada’s wealth.

One of the hardest decisions for politicians of any government is to invest significant amounts of money for the future, knowing that they won’t be getting any credit.

I was a very young man when I began my media career in the late 1960s as the city hall reporter for a radio station in Saskatoon, my home town. The Mayor of Saskatoon at that time was Sid Buckwold, a brilliant man who would go on to a distinguished career as a Senator. Mayor Buckwold and the Council of the day were smart enough to understand the benefits of land-banking (acquiring property for future growth and expansion) and the importance of long-range planning. They were doing future planning for transportation systems, including new bridges across the South Saskatchewan river—such as the one being completed now—that will provide better access for Pacific Rim markets.

It was a lesson that impressed me. When I return to Saskatoon and see the subdivisions and the Circle Drive route and remember those courageous decisions decades ago, it confirms the value of long-range planning. Perhaps these are some of the reasons why Saskatoon is one of the fastest growing cities in Canada, with a booming economy and a very high quality of life.

A real problem today is that more and more, politicians from all orders of government are just too focused on the short-term. It takes real political courage to invest in a ten or twenty year strategy to upgrade sewer pipes, for example, and to pass a long-term bylaw setting water and sewer rates that will provide sustainable financing. The reality is that homeowners—taxpayers and voters—just don’t think about their sewer pipes.  That is, of course, until the day comes when they can’t flush.

There is a natural reluctance by home owners to resist paying for things they can’t see, and pipes buried deep in the ground are hardly a good opening gambit for cocktail party conversation at the neighbourhood barbeque.

This is where local politicians need to show leadership and show courage. It’s very easy to slice the underground repair budget in a tight fiscal year, or delay replacing and improving water and sewer lines. But, the value and importance of such infrastructure cannot be underestimated.

Municipalities are responsible for more than half the infrastructure across Canada, and the gap in funding that deficit is growing every day. It’s a national crisis that is being ignored by too many politicians.

We need to have this national debate, and we need to push our political leaders to better understand the need and value of long-range planning, investments, and infrastructure commitments. The value of this strategic thinking and planning will pay off in better, stronger, and more prosperous towns and cities.

Leadership takes courage. We need to expect and demand more from those seeking public office, and we should reward long-term thinking instead of the knee-jerk, short-term shouting about the issues of the day.

That’s what the Council in Saskatoon showed in the 1960s.  And, the people of that city are benefiting today from those investments and their foresight and commitment.

I got to know Sid Buckwold very well. We became great friends. The early lessons he taught me about municipal government and the value of public service have helped to guide my own career in public office. Today, there is a major bridge in downtown Saskatoon that was re-named to honour Senator Buckwold following his death in 2001.

It’s a fitting tribute to a man who showed the kind of political courage, foresight, and strength that Canada’s communities desperately need today.

Gord Hume

Gord Hume is President of Hume Communications Inc., a professional independent advisor to municipalities. He is also a national columnist for two important Canadian web sites on municipal affairs—the Let’sTOC initiative of the Canada West Foundation and Communities of Tomorrow, and the Municipal Information Network from Montreal.  Gord is also a regular contributor to Municipal World magazine.

Gord was also elected four times to the City Council of London, ON, and has had a distinguished career in Canadian business, broadcasting, and journalism. During his career, Gord has managed radio stations and also served as the publisher of a newspaper, during which time he also received two “Broadcaster of the Year” awards.

Gord Hume is recognized as one of Canada’s leading voices on municipal government, and is an articulate and thoughtful commentator on civic government and community issues. He is a popular public speaker, an advisor to municipal governments, and a respected and provocative author.

Gord’s first book, “Cultural Planning for Creative Communities,” was published in 2009 and can be found in more than 15 countries around the world. His second book, “The Local Food Revolution,” was published in 2010 and breaks important new ground by exploring how food has shaped municipalities and the health crisis now confronting our society.

Gord’s third book is his most controversial. “Taking Back Our Cities” is an unblinking look at the relationships between Canada’s various orders of government, why municipal government has become the most important, and how we must change the system to build prosperous Canadian cities that can compete in the global economy.

Gord is a popular and sought-after public speaker who is known for his passionate and inspiring presentations. He has addressed major audiences and local governments across Canada, as well as in Asia, Europe, and the United States. Gord was the keynote speaker at the UNESCO Congress on Creative Cities in South Korea in 2010.

Email Gord at gord@gordhume.com, or visit www.gordhume.ca.

One Response to “Go Long!”

By: Ed Whittingham

These days it seems like the theatre of parliament is spilling out well beyond Ottawa’s borders. In public discourse around the federal government’s policy of accelerating resource development in western Canada, accusations, counter-accusations, slander, hyperbole and hysteria have taken the place of reasoned debate. Even Canadians who are well informed about energy issues have just cause to wonder which side to believe.

Amidst all the rhetoric, lately I’ve been feeling nostalgic for the good ol’ days of 2011, when the energy debate in Alberta had a more constructive flavour. At the time, two leading sources in the province said something virtually unprecedented, but eminently reasonable: for Alberta to be a global energy power, we need to aggressively drive down the impact a barrel of oilsands crude has on the environment, even while we save and plan for its displacement by cleaner, cheaper sources of energy.

In April 2011, the Premier’s Council for Economic Strategy, a blue ribbon panel, produced the report “Shaping Alberta’s Future.”(It was quickly dubbed the “Emerson report,” since the panel’s chair was former federal Conservative cabinet minister David Emerson.)As an Alberta-based energy and environment think-tank, the Pembina Institute supports many of the findings and recommendations of the Emerson Report, including:

• Alberta’s natural resource base is our economic strength in the short term, and responsible development of heavy oil represents a large wealth-creation opportunity for Alberta.
• We need to lessen our strong reliance on heavy oil development in its current form through economic diversification.
• Alberta has the potential to be a global leader in using innovation to drive down the carbon intensity of fossil fuel resources, an area where we can develop competitive advantage.
• Our natural resource wealth offers the opportunity to invest in ways that would make our economy much less dependent on natural resource development over the long-term.

The Emerson Report also concluded that as Albertans we must plan ahead, since it is almost certain that oilsands production will eventually be displaced by lower-cost, lower-emission alternatives. Emerson put it in a succinct and unvarnished way: “We may have heavy oil to sell, but few or no profitable markets wishing to buy.” This is why Emerson and his esteemed colleagues recommended that we work to broaden Alberta’s economic base sooner rather than later, to decrease over-reliance on one source of energy. (Whether, when and by what alternatives oilsands crude is displaced is a topic worthy of rich debate, but with sustained low natural gas prices and the development of liquid natural gas terminals on BC’s West Coast, we sure are giving developing countries like China the strong temptation to power their growing fleets by compressed natural gas instead of gasoline.)

Later in 2011, Alison Redford declared in her leadership platform that “hydrocarbons will not remain the world’s fuel of choice forever and Alberta must be prepared for the spread of alternative sources.”In November, after becoming Premier, she echoed the Emerson report when she told the Economic Club of Canada that, “Greening our energy on a global scale is also critical. More than ever, consumers are demanding environmentally responsible products… we must fill their requirements.” In her comments we see the same themes: clean up our oilsands crude now, plan for its eventual replacement by cleaner, cheaper sources and make sure that Alberta is well positioned to provide those cleaner, cheaper sources of energy.

What makes these statements remarkable is that one would hardly call Premier Redford and David Emerson’s CEO-level panel a group of granola-munching environmentalists. Rather, implicit in their analyses is a recognition of a tectonic, global shift taking place right now: the shift to cleaner forms of energy and the rise of the lucrative clean tech economy supporting it—an economy that is currently worth USD$1 trillion annually, and will be worth $3-$5 trillion a year by 2020. Currently Alberta risks getting left behind.

So what needs to happen? As Emerson and Redford have recommended, first we must drive down the environmental footprint of the oilsands on a per-barrel basis, to maintain access to markets for our biggest energy product at the moment. I’ve heard from some companies that are starting to talk about a 50 per cent reduction of carbon intensity at the point of production, to ensure their oilsands products can compete with most other imported sources of crude.

This is the ambition we need.

The Redford government’s commitment to launch “AOSTRA-2,” reviving a former oilsands innovation program that would be refocused on “the sustainability, environmental and emissions-related technology challenges of today,” is a good start. (We also need to carefully manage the pace and scale of overall development, to ensure that our intensity gains are not all for naught.)

Second, we must save for the future when heavy oil is displaced and take serious steps now to shift capital from polluting energy to cleaner energy. The Emerson Report recommended establishing a “Shaping the Future Fund, based on proceeds from the sale of non-renewable energy assets (primarily royalties) to ensure that wealth produced by converting natural assets today is invested wisely in our economic future.” In its election platform, the Redford government promised a “renewed fiscal policy and savings strategy to reduce dependence on non-renewable resource revenue and seek Albertans’ input on the future of the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund.”

Whether through earmarking royalty revenue, redirecting tax breaks or expanding the scope and strength of Alberta’s carbon tax, shifting capital could serve several purposes. It could lessen the risk of investing in clean energy, investment that lags what happens in Silicon Valley, New York and Shanghai given the conservatism of Canada’s banks and investment houses. It could create low cost working capital for Alberta clean tech firms as they walk through the valley of death, or provide loan guarantees for Alberta clean energy producers as they enter foreign markets, a complement to an export strategy that includes clean technology.

The economic prize up for grabs is massive, and the importance of changes in the global energy market for our province’s future cannot be overstated. The sooner we Albertans turn our backs to the political theatre of late and do what we know needs to be done, the better.

Ed Whittingham

Ed Whittingham is the Executive Director of the Pembina Institute, a Canada-based environmental think tank whose mission is to advance sustainable energy solutions through research, advocacy, consulting and education.

Ed joined Pembina in 2005 as director of the consulting program, through which he led a variety of stakeholder, policy and technical analysis projects on sustainable energy production and consumption. Ed also serves in an advisory capacity to companies, industry associations, government bodies and research networks on sustainable energy solutions.

Ed holds an International MBA from York University’s Schulich School of Business, where he specialized in corporate sustainability and international business.