Canada West Foundation Blog

By: Larissa Sommerfeld 

Alberta is now in the throes of the third week of the provincial election campaign. Given the critical importance of the province’s water resources to its economy and environment, it is worthwhile checking in to see how water policy is being addressed by the contending parties.

I’ve reviewed the platforms of the main parties and have highlighted their water policies below:

Alberta Party
The Alberta Party’s platform focuses on the five core ideas of healthcare, students, democracy, the economy and communities. It doesn’t specifically place environmental concerns front and centre. However, under the “economy” section, the Party commits to promoting a “positive brand image for our resource industries by insisting on best practices and a strong commitment to environmental stewardship.”

Evergreen Party
The Evergreens—a newer addition to Alberta’s political scene who have replaced the Alberta Greens—simply state in their party platform that “we will encourage conservation and reduction of water usage, and prevent the sale or export of water.”

Liberal Party
The Liberals do not mention water in their party platform at all. Rather, their key environmental policies focus on emissions and the monitoring of the oil and gas industry.

New Democratic Party
The NDP has some very specific water policy goals outlined in their platform including stopping the expansion of water markets and putting human and ecosystem needs first when it comes to water allocation. Regarding industry activity, the NDs support:

• Cleaning up tailings ponds, but at a cost to companies rather than taxpayers;
• Doubling the monitoring and enforcement activities of the Ministry of Environment and Water to “make sure the industry lives up to its environmental obligations under the law”; and
• Appointing an independent scientific panel to examine hydraulic fracturing.

Progressive Conservative Party
The PC Party does not have a comprehensive policy platform available on their website. In this case, we have to look at past policy to see where they might stand on water:

• Premier Redford renamed the Ministry of the Environment as the Ministry of Environment and Water last fall. According to Diana McQueen, the current Minister for Environment and Water, this was a “deliberate move to emphasize the priority that our government places on this resource.”
• The government has committed to increase funding to about $11 million for environmental monitoring; and
• An annual amount of $150 million has been committed to fund the Alberta Oil Sands Technology and Research Authority (AOSTRA) to support research that will help Alberta work toward meeting the Water for Life goals.

Wildrose Party
The Wildrose Party has a fairly robust environmental platform. Some of their commitments include creating a position for an Albertan environmental ombudsman and addressing water quantity issues in the south and water quality issues in the north. The Party is committed to finding ways to improve water storage by building more dams and/or reservoirs and states it will review and reform Alberta’s licensing system to “ensure that existing licenses are fully utilized while respecting the principle of first in time, first in right.” It also is supportive of new conservation technology that allows for the use of things such as grey water recycling and supportive of the movement toward a federal ban on bulk water exports to the US. Regarding industry, the Wildrose has stated it in its platform that it will:

• Work toward eliminating tailings ponds;
• Support water technology so that industrial use of water decreases; and
• Strictly enforce existing regulations on effluent-producing industries.

By: Larissa Sommerfeld, Policy Analyst

Canada’s budget was tabled on March 29 and it includes some interesting changes related to water policy. Here are the highlights:

• Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO): While we’ll have to wait until the Government’s Budget Omnibus Bill is tabled to find out whether there will be changes to the Fisheries Act, Minister Flaherty announced $10.5 million for the DFO to support “key fisheries science activities”—which is essentially monitoring of key commercial fish stocks. But overall, the DFO faces cuts of about $4 million this year, $13 million for 2013-14 and $79 million after that.
• Elimination of the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE): The NRTEE is over twenty years old and is a well-respected, arms-length organization with a Parliamentary mandate to “promote sustainable development advice and solutions”. Over its history, the NRTEE has focused on economic and environment issues related to climate, water, energy, biodiversity and governance. In fact, Canada West Foundation’s Shawna Stirrett authored the Round Table’s most recent publication. It’s unfortunate that this reputable organization will be dissolved—particularly when issues related to the interface between the economy and the environment are arguably more important than they’ve ever been.
• Environment Canada: Environment Canada will face large cuts for the foreseeable future: $20 million (2012-13), $60 million (2013-14) and $90 million after that. 
•  First Nations: The federal government committed $330.8 million over the next two years to build and renovate water infrastructure on reserves. This money is also meant to support the development of a long-term “strategy to improve water quality in First Nations communities.” This is a step in the right direction; a prosperous nation like Canada shouldn’t have the water problems of developing countries, as many argue is the case on reserves across the country.
• Flood mitigation: In response to the devastating floods of 2011, the government has committed $99.2 million over three years to “ assist the provinces and territories with the cost of permanent flood mitigation measures undertaken for the 2011 floods.” Better still, the government wants to move toward a nationally led program: “the Government is also committed to discussing with the provinces and territories the development of a national disaster mitigation program, recognizing that mitigation can lessen the impact of natural disasters on vulnerable communities and reduce the costs associated with these events.” This is a move that should be applauded; proactive measures in flood management are always good news.
• Infrastructure: A series of financial commitments were made to both the provinces and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to improve water infrastructure. While municipalities will likely see this as positive, others may argue that continuing grants isn’t a good policy choice. While Canada does indeed face a major water infrastructure deficit that requires billions to fix, many argue that the prices of water treatment and conveyance should be increased to fund the upgrades rather than relying on government funding.
• Lake Winnipeg: Since 2008, the federal government has funded the Lake Winnipeg Basin Initiative. The Initiative has goals that include: reducing blue-green algae blooms, ensuring fewer beach closings, and restoring the ecological integrity of the lake. While no dollar amount was specified in the budget, the Government stated that it’s committed to continue funding activities targeted at restoring the lake.
• Mining Regulations: Environment Canada administers the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations, which regulate the deposit of mine tailings and other waste “produced during mining operations into natural fish bearing waters.” According to the DFO, these regulations are “among the most comprehensive and stringent national standards for mining effluents in the world.” These regulations will be expanded to non-metal diamond and coal mines. This is a change that truly makes sense, and probably should’ve been made much earlier.
• National Resources Canada (NRCAN): NRCAN is slated to receive $23 million over two years for new satellite data reception facilities as well as the development of a data management system. These systems can be used for a variety of activities ranging from flood mapping to detecting oil spills. This is a step in the right direction: more knowledge and data will lead to well-informed policy.

Overall, there’s a mix of positive and negative developments outlined in the 2012 budget. We’ll just have to wait and see what impacts these changes will have.

By: Larissa Sommerfeld

Pipelines, robocalls and economic angst seem to be dominating headlines these days. Yet, there’s an important topic that’s missing from the limelight—water.

Everyone knows that water is essential to our survival and our way of life. What would our national sport be without the ice? But how often do we make the connection between healthy ecosystems and a strong economy?

Not often enough. As economic development in western Canada continues to ramp up, it’s critical that we’re as mindful (if not more) of our water and the broader environment as we are our economic prospects.

Across western Canada, water is integral to a wide range of economic activity including fisheries, shale gas development, irrigated agriculture, oil sands development, and potash and uranium mining.

Yet, there’s a sleeping water policy giant that will be waking up in due course. Climate change, extreme weather, increasing demand for energy, food, commodities, decreasing water quality (often due to effluent discharge and agricultural run-off), depleted sources, mindless water consumption, aging infrastructure, and the drainage of wetlands are all placing immense pressure on our water supplies. If we don’t start mitigating these strains, we’ll have some real trouble on our hands.

If western Canada is going to continue to be a great place to live, we need to constantly be thinking one step ahead. Our economic activity in the natural resource sectors (energy, potash, uranium, agriculture and aquaculture) is projected to grow in the coming decades. This is great news for our economy, but only if we become even better stewards of our water. The time is now for water to take priority on the policy agenda, up alongside energy, health and education policy—before we get to a breaking point.

Water allocation (of which addressing Aboriginal water rights will be key) will be one of the most challenging policy issues in the years ahead and there’s no beating around the bush—it will have to be addressed because water is a necessary component of the western Canadian economy. Canadian author Marq de Villiers once said that “the trouble with water is that they aren’t making any more of it.” We’ve got to protect what we have, not only to keep our ecosystems healthy, but to sustain our economy as well. We have a finite supply of water so it makes sense to find ways to maximize how it’s used so it can meet the increased demand with the same amount of water. This is something we should all care about because our livelihoods depend on it.

Read more about water and economic development in our new report, Stress Points: An Overview of Water and Economic Growth in Canada.

By: Larissa Sommerfeld

This coming Saturday will mark the completion of a long and drawn out race for the leadership of Canada’s New Democratic Party.

Does water policy fit into the platforms of its leadership candidates?

It doesn’t seem top of mind for Thomas Mulcair or Brian Topp. Both candidates appear to have mentioned water policy only in the context of larger environmental policy, and don’t have any detailed positions posted on their websites. So called “wild card” Nathan Cullen deems himself a “radical” for standing up for the environment, so it’s probably safe to assume that water would be central to his policy agenda. And Peggy Nash and Paul Dewar have been more passionate about the subject and believe that a national water strategy is needed.

The development of a national water strategy isn’t a partisan issue in the policy community. In fact, groups from all sides of the spectrum (from the Canadian Water Resources Association and Pollution Probe to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce) have been calling for the development of a national strategy to ensure Canada is in the best position possible to stand ground against water challenges due to climate change and rising demand stemming from increased economic activity (e.g., the running of LNG terminals on the West Coast would require massive amounts of energy which would come from hydroelectricity). However, a national strategy wasn’t mentioned in the 2011 NDP election platform, nor does it seem to be getting much attention now.

The water debate is more focused on bulk water exports. In January 2012, Paul Dewar stated he would ban bulk water exports, which is in-line with the official NDP position. Dewar has spoken out about Thomas Mulcair, a former Liberal and Minister of Environment in Quebec, stating “I hope that the position he had before with the Liberal government, which was in the past, is in the past, and that his position will be the party position….” The position Dewar is referring to was Mulcair’s desire to open up a debate on bulk-water exports from Quebec to the US. His position was highlighted in a clip posted by the Liberal Party of Canada.

This will certainly be something to watch. The favoured candidates are Mulcair and Topp, both of whom don’t seem to have water on the brain. If either of them are elected, water as an issue might fall out of the NDP periphery and the push for a national water strategy—which most water policy experts agree is something that’s needed—may rest solely with the Liberals (who are very active on the water file) and the Green Party’s Elizabeth May.

By: Larissa Sommerfeld

In Canada, we often think within our respective provincial/territorial bubbles, but it’s important to create public policy on a regional basis.

Take the case of the Northwest Territories (NWT) and its recently developed water stewardship strategy, Northern Voices, Northern Waters. Published in 2010, this strategy is lauded due to the fact that the NWT government engaged and collaborated with citizens, introduced an eco-system approach to governance and defined water as a human right.

One of the main obstacles to success of the strategy, however, is what neighbouring jurisdictions, such as British Columbia and Alberta, do or don’t do in terms of water policy.

The NWT is almost entirely enclosed with the Mackenzie River Basin—a massive watershed that contains 20% of Canada’s landmass and also includes parts of Yukon, British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan. While borders separate governance, they do not separate the flow of water. What happens downstream will affect water quality or quantity upstream. And upstream in this case goes all the way north to the Beaufort Sea.

The real test for the NWT will come in implementing the strategy. And that’s where things get tricky.

For instance, take the obvious example of Alberta’s oil sands. Long criticized for affecting both water quality (pollution and altered water temperature) and quantity (altered in-stream flow needs), those in the NWT assert that Alberta needs to continue to work toward sustainable development to ensure that those who rely on a clean and stable water supply upstream aren’t unduly affected.

This isn’t to say that the NWT isn’t dealing with similar issues within its own borders. The point, however, is that activity outside of those borders requires intergovernmental discussion and coordination because governments have different goals, different solutions and different opinions.

Last week, the Canada West Foundation and the Forum for Leadership on Water (FLOW) co-hosted two events held in Edmonton and Calgary which were part of water expert Bob Sandford‘s 15 city cross-country speaking tour titled “Northern Voices, Southern Choices” on this very topic.

One of the key themes that emerged from both discussions was the need for a Canadian water strategy—a strategy that would get provincial and territorial governments on the same page so that strategies like “Northern Voices” would have a greater chance of being successfully implemented.

What do you think? Does Canada need a national water strategy? Should we be thinking about other provinces or territories when developing our water policies, or should we just focus on our own jurisdiction? Can southern choices truly silence northern voices?

These aren’t easy questions to answer. But, in the end, we’re all downstream from someone.

For more on Bob Sandford’s presentation and thought-pieces on this issue, check out FLOW’s website at www.flowcanada.org.

By: Larissa Sommerfeld, Policy Analyst

Today Alberta’s new cabinet will be sworn in.

Some regard the selection of her Cabinet to be Premier Alison Redford’s first test. How many fresh faces will have new jobs? Who will be shuffled? Will any of the old guard remain?

Those involved in water policy will watch the Environmental portfolio closely. Will veteran Minister Rob Renner stay or go?

Perhaps more importantly, what does the election of Redford mean for Alberta’s water?

On her campaign blog, Redford wrote, “while I believe that water needs to be conserved, this does not necessarily imply that it should be treated as a commodity with a market-driven price. Such a move has far-reaching and complex implications, none of which, especially in areas like licensing and export obligations, have been adequately explored.”

She went on to write that any changes to water policy would be arrived at through public consultations. However, she did refer to the fact that she would move “ahead with a new water management framework for the province.”

While her statements were ambiguous, it is clear that Redford will wade into the water debate cautiously. She is aware that the status quo cannot continue, and is committed to ensuring the stability of Alberta’s water supply. So, while we know the ends, we do not yet know the means to get there.

One fundamental question will be whether Redford will follow any of the recommendations put forth by the Premier’s Council for Economic Strategy in the 2011 report Shaping Alberta’s Future. When it comes to water policy, the report recommended that the province create an Alberta Water Authority. The Authority, an independent organization, would be tasked with gathering and maintaining a robust water database for the province, developing a long-term water infrastructure plan, and perhaps most importantly, “oversee[ing] an Alberta water allocation exchange.”

This Authority would “encourage the growth of activity that delivers the highest possible benefit to the province for the water used.” In other words, the Premier’s Council recommended that an active water market in Alberta be developed—one where those industries that could generate the highest benefit to Alberta are awarded the right to use an allocated amount of water. (What is meant by benefit is still to be determined.)

Although a pseudo water market currently exists in the southern half of the province, the idea of a market is extremely controversial. Stakeholders have expressed concern that a firmly entrenched market would favour those who can pay large sums for a license—for instance, an irrigator likely could not compete with a large oil company.

While there has been much discussion about further developing water markets in Alberta, the Stelmach government did not wade too far into the debate. Now that we have a new government, perhaps we’ll see some movement in this area.

Will Redford follow the advice of the Premier’s Council? Or will she start from scratch—engage in public consultations and carefully assess the implications of a water market before initiating new policy? Or will she wait until the next general election? Water just might be one of those issues that isn’t touched until a clear government mandate—which isn’t entirely certain right now—is given to the Redford Progressive Conservatives.

Only time will tell. But today’s pick for Environment Minister might give us a few hints.

With increasing food and energy prices, a growing world population and the potential effects of climate change, water—and how it is managed—is more important than ever. A new publication by the Canada West Foundation delves into the views of water policy experts across the West to determine key highlights and priorities for our water future. 

Wave of the Future: Water Policy in Western Canada by Dr. Roger Gibbins and Larissa Sommerfeld highlights viewpoints from over 50 individuals across the West with a background in water management, governance or the study of water, brought together by the Canada West Foundation for the Honourable James A. Richardson Discovery Roundtables. As a result of these discussions, it was obvious that water experts have similar priorities.

“Canada needs to take a long-term approach to planning water policy,” advises Dr. Gibbins. “In addition to ensuring that policy developments progress in a timely matter, we also need to appropriately value this natural capital while increasing public awareness about water issues.”

Our water has the potential to be a challenging issue for western Canada in the coming years, yet the participants at the spring 2011 James A. Richardson Discovery Roundtables shared a general sense of optimism. Although there are challenges that lie ahead with this resource and how we can best manage it, decision-makers should recognize that addressing any one of the priorities highlighted will be a step in the right direction.

The Honourable James A. Richardson Discovery Roundtables were launched in 2006 to seek out new thinking to strengthen the voice of western Canadians and gain a sense of policy challenges to come. The annual roundtables are designed to engage a small group of individuals with a background in, and a passion for, the topic under discussion. In the spring of 2011, the Roundtables featured water and were held in Victoria, Lethbridge, Saskatoon and Winnipeg. 

Click here to download a copy of Wave of the Future: Water Policy in Western Canada.

Two new publications released by the Canada West Foundation examine the current and future state of Canada’s water supply and the impact that market-based instruments in water resources management have on policy innovation.
 
Charging for Water Use in Canada: A Workbook of the Central Principles, Key Questions, and Initial Steps provides a workbook that outlines the questions policymakers must answer in order to build a comprehensive water system from interviews of 42 water policy experts in Australia, Canada and the United States.

Our Water and NAFTA: Implications for the Use of Market-Based Instruments for Water Resources Management determines whether using market-based instruments as a solution for water allocation will impact Canada’s participation in the North American Free Trade Agreement.

“Canadians are some of the heaviest users of water in the world and we also pay some of the lowest prices for that water. Yet, the nation’s current supply of clean and safe freshwater is not guaranteed given the prospect of climate change and our critical water and wastewater infrastructure in many areas of the country is in a clear state of disrepair,” noted Vander Ploeg. “More rational and appropriate pricing strategies for water are one way to resolve some of these concerns.”

Canada’s water supports diverse and significant ecosystems, is essential to almost all aspects of the economy and has great social and cultural significance. With that said, global trends including climate change, population growth and urbanization are creating apprehension about the future of one of our greatest resources. By creating a comprehensive framework for water management, we will be able to successfully manage coming stresses and strains on Canada’s water supply.

Download Charging for Water Use in Canada: A Workbook of the Central Principles, Key Questions, and Initial Steps or Our Water and NAFTA: Implications for the Use of Market-Based Instruments for Water Resources Management.

By Larissa Sommerfeld, Policy Analyst

Canada’s premiers are getting serious about water policy. On June 14th, the Council of the Federation announced the creation of the Water Stewardship Council (WSC). The Council comprises senior government officials, one from each province and territory—in most cases, the Deputy Minister of Environment. Not just another council, the WSC plans to put some muscle into Canadian water policy by acting as an information and advice-giving resource for Canadian premiers.

The creation of the WSC is good news for a variety of reasons:

First, the WSC marks a continuation of the momentum that was gathered with the creation of the 2010 Council of the Federation Water Charter. The Water Charter is a brief document that recognizes some of the challenges in Canadian water policy (e.g., watersheds do not follow political boundaries) and commits the provinces and territories to working together to successfully manage water in their individual jurisdictions. The WSC is an action-oriented body that will take last year’s work one-step further by implementing the Water Charter commitments.

Second, the WSC will strive to address some of the challenges that have dogged Canadian water policy in the past. There is an emphasis on ensuring that water quality in rural and remote areas is improved upon. Often the discussion of water in Canada is focused on quantity—floods in Manitoba, or scarcity in southern Alberta. There’s a lesser focus on quality, despite the fact that it is a serious problem in rural areas, as well as on First Nations reserves. Perhaps most important is the goal to develop a water sharing initiative, which is meant to “improve the dissemination of and access to water data, and better integrate data and information across provinces/territories and sectors.” Improving the way data is collected and analyzed is immensely important to successful water policies.

Third, by implementing the WSC, Canada’s premiers indicate they are serious about translating academic research into policy. In addition to the WSC, the Water Partner Advisory Committee (WPAC) has also been created. The Advisory Committee will guide and direct the WSC, and is likely to be key to the success of the WSC. The Advisory Committee is made up of 11 highly respected individuals from the water policy community, each of who bring vastly different, yet rich experience and knowledge to the table. The involvement of these experts with the WPAC will should ensure a strong linkage between the academic and the policymaking communities.

Several of the members of both the WSC and the Advisory Committee participated in Canada West Foundation’s spring 2011 series of the Richardson Roundtables, held on the topic of water policy in western Canada. These individuals are competent, visionary and action-oriented. It will be fascinating to watch the development of the Water Stewardship Council in the months to come, and see whether or not further initiatives or actions will be announced in the wake of the annual Council of the Federation meeting held next month in Vancouver.

The creation of both the Water Council and the Water Advisory Committee are positive signs. The action-oriented council is an indication that the Canadian government sees water policy as an important issue; yet it should be noted that significant challenges do exist and Canadians will likely want to see evidence that these councils are producing positive outcomes that address key water policy issues. However, the emphasis on inter-governmental collaboration, improved data collection and monitoring, linkage with the academic community, and focus on persistent problems such as water quality in rural areas seem to indicate that our Premiers are ready to put some muscle into Canadian water policy.

by Larissa Sommerfeld, Policy Analyst

President Obama’s classic phrase, “yes, we can!” may soon fade into the background of political rhetoric in the US, especially after this month’s unsurprising election results. Yet here in Alberta, those involved in the energy sector have an optimistic, forward-looking picture of what the future looks like for the province. And when it comes to making Alberta more energy efficient, “yes, we can!” succinctly sums up the attitude of key stakeholders.

On November 5, the Alberta Energy Efficiency Alliance’s energy conference pulled together a range of stakeholders to connect and collaborate. In attendance were representatives from industry, municipalities, NGOs, and the Alberta government.

In a time when news headlines are generally pessimistic on issues of energy, the environment and the economy, it’s refreshing to find a room full of people who aren’t willing to accept a business as usual approach. Rather, they’re looking to innovate and collaborate to mobilize public awareness of energy efficiency issues, and to influence legislation.

Improving energy efficiency is an obvious first step to a greener province and a stronger economy. It is also the fastest and cheapest way to reduce GHG emissions. The clincher is that solutions need to be affordable before they will be adopted en masse. But, once this happens, we’ll be on the road to changing consumer behaviour, which is critical to long-term success.

Momentum is gathering across the country: there is increased support for a Canadian Energy Strategy, and progress is being made on improving building codes to ensure that buildings are built to higher efficiency standards.

Change is happening in Alberta as well. The province was recently given a grade of B+ in energy efficiency by the Canadian Energy Efficiency Alliance (a vast improvement from previous years) but has fallen behind other provinces such as BC and Ontario in terms of energy initiatives and outcomes. Alberta households are the largest energy consumers in Canada: in 2007, each household consumed 130 GJ, compared to the national average of 106 GJ. On the whole, Alberta consumes the most energy per capita than any other province. A large chunk of this can be attributed to Alberta’s heavy industrial activity. Yet, despite bumps along the road, there are more things going right in Alberta than going wrong, and policymakers are brimming with good intentions. Now, those intentions need to be turned into action.

Take Medicine Hat, for example. The city has a strong energy conservation program that includes the promotion and use of renewable energy sources such as solar power. The city also has an Energy Conservation Charge in place that charges customers a higher premium for energy usage that exceeds the allotted maximum amount per billing cycle.

One key step towards improved energy efficiency is an effective carbon price. Yet, there was a sense of resignation by some conference participants over the recent US elections. Many talked about the urgent need for an effective carbon price either through a cap and trade system, or through a market, but reluctantly agreed that it doesn’t make sense for Canada to go forward until the US pushes out their energy strategy. It’s unlikely that the US will be making significant change in this area anytime soon. Regardless of the doubts of some, Canada isn’t waiting on the development of a national energy strategy—the possibility of which was recently embraced by Alberta Energy Minister Ron Liepert.

Bottom line: More individuals, businesses and organizations are realizing that improving energy efficiency can lead to a several good things: reduced environmental impact, increased economic gains, and valuable reputational benefits. Energy efficiency has become one of the cornerstones of debates surrounding a Canadian Energy Strategy.  And for Alberta? The province has a long way to go but the potential for both a healthy environment and burgeoning economy is significant. Better energy efficiency in Alberta? Yes, we can!