Canada West Foundation Blog

By: Roslyn Kunin

A new list of the world’s most livable cities has just been released by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). With three cities in the top 10 (Vancouver, Toronto and Calgary) and four in the top 20 (Montreal, ranked 16th) Canadians can be proud. Proportionally, western Canada can be even more proud. And Vancouver, the highest on the list for Canada, can be proudest of all, even if it is in the now familiar bronze position in world rankings.

Vancouver has a long history in the top ten of this list, often in the first position, but petty crime, traffic congestion and housing affordability have now pushed it down to third place.

But some readers may recall another headline just this past July saying that Vancouver was no longer in the top 10 of the world’s best cities. The confusion is due to the fact that the EIU’s list of “best” cities is different from its list of “most livable.” The list of cities examined for the “best” list is much shorter (70 compared to 140), and does not currently include Calgary or Vancouver. Toronto was the only Canadian city included in the best cities competition (it ranked eighth).

This points to the importance of understanding the methodology behind these lists.

For example, neither the livability index nor the best city index includes consideration of the opportunity to make a living. Since everyone who is not independently wealthy must take this into account, often before all other factors, when choosing where to live, this strikes me as a significant oversight.

This is the reason why Dacca in Bangladesh sees streams of incoming population in spite of the fact that it is at the very bottom of the livability list. Many Bangladeshis see Dacca as the place where they have the best economic prospects. And this strong in-migration no doubt contributes to reduced livability as congestion increases and infrastructure is strained.

Closer to home, Vancouver consistently outranks Calgary on the livability index, but does not appear to be keeping up when it comes to opportunities for making a living. Those who vote with their feet seem to be choosing Calgary. Over the last year in Vancouver, house prices, which have been largely unaffordable, have fallen 12%. This would not be consistent with a strong influx of population. Calgary, on the other hand, has seen house prices rise by 27% over the same time period.

Maybe we need an index that looks at making a living as well as enjoying living?

By: Michael Decker

I take 15 minute showers. I run the tap when I brush my teeth. I find a sink full of dirty dish water unsettling so I wash each individual dish and pot under the tap with the water running. I prefer a clean shiny car so I wash it at least once a week. To keep my lawn lush and green during the summer, I water it regularly. Sound excessive? It should. But like plenty of Canadians, I haven’t spent a great deal of time considering water conservation. When I turn on the tap I expect clean fresh water to come out of it. This was the way I approached water consumption until my home town in British Columbia decided to adopt water meters.

When I heard the news that my town was going to implement water meters I, like many others within the community, was baffled. Our town is located near a stable source of fresh water. Our drinking water is world-renowned (ranked third in the world one year). So why was our town council implementing water meters?

After researching Canada’s water supply, and issues surrounding water conservation, it became clearer that Canada’s water supply wasn’t as stable as I once thought. However, a problem arises for municipalities when they try to implement water conservation measures when they currently have a stable abundant supply. To address these concerns, municipalities should highlight the significant cost of treating water and the benefits of leaving water in the environment. This belief that Canada has an abundant supply of water has led to many Canadians becoming unwitting water gluttons.

Could it be true? Was I consuming water like a glutton? In addition, I was shocked to discover that my home town consumed on average 1,100 litres of water per capita per day compared to the national average of 426 litres.

The concept of water meters is very simple. Meters measure how much water you consume and then you are charged a fee based on your consumption. Once I found out that I would be charged for the amount of water that I consumed, I immediately found ways to conserve water. This was, of course, the objective of my local town council in implementing water meters. I give credit to my town council, and to cities and towns across Canada who have implemented water metering as a way of conserving water.

As a result of this initiative, I’ve reconsidered my personal water usage. I no longer take long showers, brush my teeth with the water running, wash my car every week, or water my lawn every day. I have gotten over my fear of dish water and I only run the dishwasher when it is completely full.

I am proud to say that I am no longer a water glutton. If I can be reformed, there’s a good chance that others might rethink their habits, too.

For more information on water conserving measures and for additional urban environmental policy tools, check out Canada West Foundation’s new report Tools of the Trade: Urban Environmental Improvement Options.

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: 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: Robert Roach

The federal government recently announced a “Plan for Responsible Resource Development” that will streamline the federal regulatory review process. While this is a step in the right direction, a report from the Canada West Foundation being published on May 3 argues that the task at hand is much larger. Keeping Pace: Improving Environmental Decision-Making in Canada reveals an environmental decision-making process that, while one of the best in the world, is dogged by a number of significant shortcomings. These weaknesses include insufficient integration of scientific research; a lack of clarity regarding exactly what trade-offs between environmental protection and economic development are acceptable to the government of the day; and the ongoing need to ensure that the various government departments and agencies at the federal and provincial levels are cooperating as much as possible.

You can download this timely new report for free from the Canada West Foundation website on Thursday.

As reflected by the results of the 2011 census, the creation of new House of Commons Seats and the ongoing news about the westward titling of the economy, it is clear that the nature of the Federation is shifting. The latest research from the Canada West Foundation looks at the consequences for the region and the country, now that the West is truly “in”.

Taking Stock of the Federation by Dr. Roger Gibbins, President & CEO and Robert Roach, VP, Research, is the synthesis report from a roundtable held on February 9, 2012 in Calgary. This roundtable gathered sixteen participants who provided their insights on the contemporary political landscape, the likely direction of future change, and the potential for strains within the federation across the four western provinces.

“Each region in Canada is vitally important,” notes Dr. Gibbins. “While differences between the regions have evolved, they are still key variables in both Canada’s political environment and the economy. For the federation to work well, we must ensure that all regions— including the West—are heard, understood, and integrated into the whole.”

While participants expressed a general sense of optimism about the region’s future, they also highlighted some significant challenges western Canadians will face in securing a new position within Canada and the global economy. By addressing issues like market access, sustainable environmental management, labour shortages and a fiscally unbalanced federal state, we can ensure that the future remains bright.

Taking Stock of the Federation is part of Foundation’s The West in Canada initiative, which examines public policy innovation in the West, discusses and recommends ways to improve the Canadian federation, and analyzes regional economic, demographic and public opinion trends. Click here for your copy of the report.

Western Canada profits from its abundance of natural resources, however, in the changing global landscape, we need to take action to ensure our future prosperity. The latest research from the Canada West Foundation outlines the main contours of the contemporary energy world and takes stock of the trends shaping energy in western Canada.

State of the West: Energy – 2012 Western Canadian Energy Trends, by Senior Economist Michael Holden and Policy Analyst Robbie Rolfe, provides an overview of the provincial energy systems in western Canada, including the current state of energy production, consumption, and other associated activities and impacts. That information is framed in the context of the energy-related policy issues and challenges facing the four western provinces.

“Western Canada is characterized by a profound diversity of resources, consumption patterns, and economic and environmental impacts” said Michael Holden. “The energy picture in each province is unique, but their strengths are complementary. Through a more coordinated approach to energy policy, the western provinces can become more than the sum of their parts.”

Given the extent to which it permeates our daily lives, energy has come to dominate the economic, social, and political agenda in the region. State of the West: Energy provides a one-stop information resource on energy in western Canada, informing the debate surrounding energy policy in the West, and providing context to both where we are today and where we may go in the future.

State of the West: Energy – 2012 Western Canadian Energy Trends is part of the Foundation’s Powering Up for the Future initiative, which facilitates constructive debate on sustainable energy policy solutions for Canada and promotes the vital importance of western Canadian energy systems in the national, continental, and global economy. Click here to download a copy of the report.

By: Robert Roach, VP, Research

In an article in today’s Globe and Mail, John Ibbitson argues that "One question will define national politics in our time: Are Western Canadians prepared to sacrifice for the sake of the nation, now that Ontario is less able to help?"

In addition to incorrectly implying that western Canadians chipping in to help the rest of the country is a new phenomenon, the question is the wrong one to ask.

The question Canadians should be focused on is how to ensure that the nation successfully adjusts to the evolving global economy. It is a mistake to start with a negative question that assumes the need for "sacrifice"—whatever that means—or puts pressure on the nation’s fault lines by immediately assuming that regional wealth redistribution is the solution to central Canada’s problems. This is the old way of thinking and this is not the time to bring it back.

The West knows what it is like to have its interests and economic prospects ignored and how damaging this is to the country and its potential. It will not, therefore, make the same mistake that central Canada has made in the past and be blithe to the blight of the other regions.

The West gets it—all regions benefit when all regions are heard and respected. The West will do its part, as it always has.

Ensuring Canada’s prosperity will happen naturally as the western economy continues to provide jobs and returns on investment. It will also happen at the political level through the equalization program, a strong tax base in the West that helps fill the national treasury, and by ongoing efforts by Canadians to ensure strong regional representation within the national government.

Ultimately, however, the economic recovery of Canada's industrial heartland will depend on the efforts of individual Canadians and their ability to harness the changes happening at a global level.

By: Shawna Stirrett

In November 2011 the Canada West Foundation in partnership with the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRT) conducted a series of roundtables about developing a low-carbon growth strategy for Canada with particular emphasis on the opportunities and risks facing the West.

You can read all about the main themes, policy recommendations, and overview issues in the report (click here to view) but, just for fun, here is a visual overview of the roundtables:

These word clouds were created from my notes, which were typed up during each of the sessions. Words that appeared more often in the conversation appear larger in the clouds and words that were less common are smaller. In a sense, these clouds give a visual overview of what ideas were most prevalent during the roundtables and which topic generated the most interest.

What is really fun is to see how the conversations—which were all structured around the same questions—varied from province to province.

For example, in Saskatoon, one of the main themes was on how to deal with carbon constraints in an environment of economic growth.

Those in Vancouver were most concerned about how carbon should be constrained, should it be a tax or cap and trade?

Calgary roundtable participants were pretty set on the need for a national framework around energy and emissions.

While in Winnipeg the discussion centered on how challenging it can be to put in place carbon policies when power is so cheap and emissions rates are so low in the province.

Of course these word clouds do not tell the whole story, but they do provide an interesting visual overview of what issues were important to roundtable participants and how the conversation varied across the region.

Click here to download a copy of Cautious Optimism: Western Perspectives on a Low-Carbon Economy.

By: Michael Holden

Just in time for Christmas, the federal government has announced a new funding plan for health care. The present funding agreement, in which federal cash transfers to the provinces and territories grow by 6% per year, is set to expire in 2013-2014. The new ten-year plan will see that 6% annual escalator maintained through to 2016-2017. Thereafter, federal cash transfers for health care will be tied to annual growth in nominal (i.e., not adjusted for inflation) economic output, with a floor provision that guarantees a minimum increase of 3% per year, regardless of how well the economy actually does.

This unilateral announcement caught many people off guard. Federal-provincial transfers have always been a sensitive and nuanced subject and new funding agreements typically come only after extensive, public, and often bitter negotiations between Ottawa and the provinces. Many people were just beginning to get geared up for the next round of talks, which now appear to have been cut off at the pass.

Reaction across the provinces to the new arrangement has been mixed. Alberta is strongly supportive, for reasons that I will discuss below, while BC and Saskatchewan are also largely in favour. In the rest of Canada, however, the backlash has been harsh. It being the Christmas season, “lump of coal” metaphors abound.

This backlash is rooted in the interpretation of a Conservative Party campaign promise during the last election; several provinces had expected the 6% escalator to be maintained over the entirety of the new funding arrangement. Tying federal transfers to economic output will almost certainly result in slower growth in health transfers beginning in 2017-2018.

How much slower is anyone’s guess at this point. However, historical data suggest that nominal economic growth in Canada has actually been quite consistent over the long term, averaging 4.2% over the past 10 years, 4.7% over the past 15 years and 4.5% over the past 20 years. Assuming growth at the low end of that range (4.2%) over the duration of the new plan, total federal health transfers to the provinces can be expected to increase from about $30 billion in 2013-2014 to about $47.7 billion in 2023-2024. Had the 6% escalator remained in place, transfers would have reached $53.7 billion.

As I hinted at above, Alberta is the clear winner under this new funding arrangement. One of the less-publicized changes it will bring is that cash transfers for health care will be distributed across the provinces on an equal-per-capita basis. At present, this is not the case. The history and complexities of federal transfers are too complicated to get into here, but the end result is that wealthy provinces (with strong tax bases) currently receive less cash per person from the federal government for health care than poorer provinces. Since Alberta is by far the wealthiest, it receives far less on a per-capita basis than the other provinces.

When the new funding arrangement comes into effect, there will be a large increase in per-capita cash transfers to Alberta in order for it to reach the same level as the other provinces. This change is bound to be controversial. Alberta is already the richest province in Canada. For it to receive a perceived “windfall” of cash may not sit well with some provinces, especially since the increase in payments to Alberta will, by definition, come at the expense of increases to other provinces (because all funds come out of a fixed pool).

One thing is for certain; after a few quiet years, fiscal federalism and issues about federal-provincial transfers suddenly are back in the public policy spotlight. We will be writing more on these subjects in the months ahead.