Canada West Foundation Blog

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: Shawna Stirrett

Using market-based instruments (MBIs) for environmental protection is a potentially exciting way to manage the tension that sometimes arises between economic and environmental goals. MBIs apply the economic principles of supply and demand to the management of natural resources and they rely on the market to positively influence behaviour.

There are many different kinds of MBIs and some of them, such as deposit refund programs for drinking containers, have a long history in Canada. Other types of MBIs, such as transfer of development credits and resource allocation trading, have had limited uptake in Canada so far.

There is, however, the chance that MBIs will be used more frequently in Alberta in the coming years because of some recent policy changes that have come about with the passing of the Alberta Land Stewardship Act (ALSA) in 2009. This Act explicitly enables the use of market-based instruments for the protection of natural resources in Alberta.

While the theory behind MBIs is solid, the challenge is in the details. It is imperative that market-based solutions are clearly addressing an environmental problem, that they are understandable and accessible to the public, and that they operate within clear regulatory boundaries.

An illustration of how challenging it can be to find the right balance is found in Alberta’s home rebate program for energy efficient new homes. The idea behind this rebate is to incent homebuilders or homebuyers to choose products and designs that will be as energy efficient as possible. This means that if you buy a new home with an EnerGuide rating of 80 or above you will receive a government rebate that ranges from $1,500 - $10,000 on a sliding scale tied to efficiency ratings.

This is a fantastic program in theory because the more that can be done to encourage home owners to reduce their energy consumption the less greenhouse gas will be emitted, the less need there will be for new power generating stations and fewer building materials will end up in the landfills. According to C3 (the organization that administers the rebate program): “Upgrading the energy efficiency of a new home could reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by upwards of one tonne per year.”

The devil, of course, is in the details. The first challenge is that most builders do not know, or do not advertise, the energy rating of the homes they build. If a new buyer wants to find out the rating of their home, they will have to go through a pre-evaluation process. This means sending building site plans with elevations, sections and floor plans; specifications on insulation, doors and windows; mechanical details on the furnace, hot water heater, fireplace and other efficiencies; and information about appliances and lighting systems for assessment.

Not only is this a lot of work, but it will cost homeowners around $300 (if their new house is 1,200 square feet or less, additional footage is charged extra) to have this pre-evaluation done, which will tell them if they might be eligible for the rebate. The fee is non-refundable. There may also be additional charges if the house has solar or geothermal systems attached.

Should they decide to go ahead with getting their house EnerGuide rated, homeowners then have to get a blower door test done—at a cost of $175 for the first hour and $120 for every subsequent hour, and potentially including mileage for the Energy Advisor.

Finally, it is an additional $100 to update the file with the blower door test information, submit the claim to Natural Resources Canada and get the EnerGuide label and report.

A conservative estimate, then, is that a homeowner would need to spend around $600 in order to apply for the rebate that is offered. This is worth it if the house will be rated at the highest level, giving them a rebate of $10,000 or if there is certainty that the house will qualify for a rebate. But what about those who come in at the lowest level eligible for the rebate? They will have spent $600 (not to mention what they will have already spent on high efficiency furnaces, windows, insulation, etc.) in order to get back $1,500. What about those who invest in the pre-evaluation only to find out they are ineligible?

Because of the effort and the amount of money required to get this rebate, this program will have the greatest appeal for those who already care about the efficiency rating of their home and will have designed their home with efficiency measures in mind. In other words, this rebate as currently designed is aimed largely at people who would have made their homes as efficient as possible already and are not motivated by the promise of money back.

The argument could be made, therefore, that the rebate program is not incenting people to buy or build energy efficient homes, merely rewarding those who do.

So what can be done about this? It’s not as though the assessment process can be scaled back. There needs to be certainty that rebate-receiving houses really are as efficient as they say they are otherwise taxpayer money will be thrown away and no environmental benefit will result.

One potential solution is increased system integration around this issue. Would it be possible, for example, to require homebuilders to assess and disclose the EnerGuide rating of their homes, much like auto manufacturers are required to disclose the fuel economy of their vehicles? This would enable consumers to quantify the efficiency levels of new homes and this information, in addition to the rebate program, could lead to preferential selection of homes with higher efficiency ratings. In this way, builders would acquire greater experience and expertise in efficiency measures, one of the main barriers to consumers (the cost and the time of finding out the rating of their new home) would be reduced and substantial improvements could be made in Alberta’s environmental performance.

As this example demonstrates, the idea behind MBIs is good and they have the potential to enable environmental protection in an economically sustainable way. Getting the details of a market-based instrument right, however, is imperative if the tool is going to be effective at solving environmental problems and motivating people to change behaviour.

A detailed look at the role of market-based instruments within the Alberta context is covered in a forthcoming Canada West Foundation report entitled: “The Invisible Hand’s Green Thumb: Market-Based Instruments for Environmental Protection in Alberta.”

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: Shawna Stirrett

Just prior to Environment Minister Peter Kent’s announcement in December 2011 that Canada had decided to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol, the Canada West Foundation and the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRT) wrapped up a series of meetings in western Canada on developing a low-carbon growth strategy for the country. One of the key themes that emerged from these meetings was the role of national and international emission reduction targets such as those in the Kyoto Protocol.

Interestingly, there was consensus among the participants that Canada should not be overly focused on emission reduction targets. Participants argued that reduction targets have a tendency to send the wrong signals to producers and consumers. A focus on targets that are not accompanied by a clear strategy for meeting them can have a paralyzing effect rooted in uncertainty and fear.

For example, did every province under Kyoto need to reduce emissions by 17% by 2020, or was the target meant to be a national average? If it was a national average, did that mean that if some provinces did not meet the target, other provinces would have to make up the difference?

Another reason participants took issue with an emphasis on targets was that they can have the unintended consequence of promoting competition rather than cooperation. Targets can create the perception of a zero-sum game in which, as long as a province or country is doing better than another, it wins.

A final reason participants argued that there should be less emphasis on emission reduction targets is that they often overshadow other environmental considerations such as land management, water quality, protection of biodiversity and so on.

Instead of relying exclusively on emission reduction targets, participants argued that Canada should be setting environmentally quantifiable goals that are holistic in nature. These goals would ideally foster interprovincial cooperation, account for all aspects of environmental protection, encourage energy efficiency and facilitate the creation of a nationally coordinated plan for dealing with energy and environmental issues.

While the consensus of participants was that emission reduction targets should not be the main focus of environmental management in Canada and it’s path to a low-carbon future, this does not mean that they were in favour of pulling out of Kyoto. Nonetheless, there was a clear sense of the limitations of Kyoto-like targets for achieving our environmental goals.

For the full summary report of the western Canadian roundtables on a low-carbon growth strategy for the country, see the Canada West Foundation report entitled: “Cautious Optimism: Western Perspectives on a Low-Carbon Economy.”

By: Robbie Rolfe

I sometimes find myself getting weary of ideologues on environmental issues. One argument I find particularly tiresome is the insistence that there are significant tradeoffs when it comes to the economy and the environment. The conclusion of these extreme viewpoints is that we can be prosperous polluters or penniless hippies. Apparently, there is no middle ground.

These zero-sum views neglect market-based instruments (MBIs for short) that can make us both prosperous and green. The careful deployment of MBIs can address a major difficulty facing governments trying to encourage good environmental practices: people and businesses will not provide enough ecological goods and services because the costs of providing them accrue to individual persons or businesses while the benefits are enjoyed by the wider community. An MBI is a mechanism that shares the costs of environmental protection among its many beneficiaries.

Take a farmer who is nearing retirement and needs cash. If he sells his farm to a developer, he gets the money he needs. If he holds onto the land to ensure that it continues to provide a nearby city’s water system with valuable natural filtration, he takes a direct financial hit. There are significant tradeoffs in that situation: the farmer gives up some of his livelihood to maintain ecological benefits or gives up ecological benefits to enhance his livelihood. An MBI could pay the farmer for the ecological goods and services his land provides. To ensure a fair price, the amount the farmer gets could be set by a market, or at least market-like mechanisms. Taxpayers living in the city who benefit from the natural filtration on the farmer’s land could fund the MBI through their taxes, thereby sharing in the costs associated with the benefits they receive.

The good news is that these kinds of policies are increasingly under consideration in western Canada. The Alberta Land Stewardship Act, for example, urges the use of market-based instruments on a regional or local level to better provide ecological goods and services, particularly when it comes to land use and land management.

Though market-based instruments show great potential, we are only beginning to explore their varied applications. If we can tap that potential, then one day we may be able to have our cake and eat it too.

MBIs are explored in detail in a new Canada West Foundation report entitled The Invisible Hand’s Green Thumb: Market-based Instruments for Environmental Protection in Alberta. To download the report, click here. 

A new publication released by the Canada West Foundation illustrates Canada’s current energy reality and highlights opportunities for a bright energy future.

Catching a Rising Tide: A Western Energy Vision for Canada by Sheila O’Brien and Shawna Ritchie, draws from one-on-one conversations with 50 leading western Canadian experts in energy and the environment who share their vision for energy. Energy has been an important centerpiece in public policy discussions for the last half-century, conversations which are now part of a global debate.

“Western Canada has expertise in the production of various energy resources, but we have also had to address the need for sustainable and responsible development and the reality of unequal resource distribution—making our energy reality a microcosm of global energy production,” notes authors O’Brien and Ritchie. “This gives western Canada’s vision for energy particular importance in national discussions about where energy should and could go in the future.”

Canada has the opportunity to become a supplier of choice for energy products, services and expertise, supported by environmental and social records that define our values as a nation and give us a stronger voice internationally. However, achieving this vision will be a challenge for all Canadians regardless of where they live. As the Foundation’s President and CEO, Dr. Roger Gibbins explains, Catching a Rising Tide, “provides a model for western Canadian thought leadership on the big national policy issues of the day, setting out creative options rather than narrow prescriptions.”

To purchase a copy of Catching a Rising Tide: A Western Energy Vision for Canada, click here.

By: Shawna Ritchie

Developing a national vision for energy can seem like a daunting task. After all, there are so many different ideas, opinions, perspectives and factors that come into play. Should Canada continue to develop the oil sands? Should we be trying to sell more oil and gas to Asian countries or to the United States? Or, should we not be selling it at all? Is reducing our emissions profile the most important issue going forward? Or is protecting Canadian jobs?

These were the kinds of questions that Sheila O’Brien (my co-author) and I were exploring during the first few months of 2011 when we set out to interview 50 of the leading experts in western Canada on energy and the environment. We had an incredibly diverse and thoughtful group of interviewees and heard many different visions for Canada’s energy future.

Throughout the course of these interviews, an interesting trend started to emerge. It became clear that a person’s perspective on the potential for renewable energy has a dramatic impact on their vision for the future. It wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to say that what someone believes about the potential of renewable energy shapes their vision for energy in Canada. And, broadly, there are three different groups of people when it comes to the potential of renewable energy: the optimists, the hybrids and the skeptics.

Those who have unbridled optimism for the future of renewable energy have a vision for Canada that we would fuel our energy and economic needs almost entirely with renewable energies.

They would accomplish this vision by stopping the production of conventional energy and therefore eliminating the need to build new pipelines or LNG terminals. They see a future where governments, individuals and companies would all turn their time, creativity and—importantly—money towards fostering and developing renewable energy solutions. This collective commitment toward renewable energies would enable us to overcome the current technical challenges around renewables like the lack of an efficient storage system and the high materials cost.

These optimists point out that Canada has one of the most expansive renewable energy portfolios in the world with good wind corridors, sunny skies, innumerable rivers, extensive bio feedstock and much, much more. They argue that if we diverted money away from conventional energy subsidies, technologies and investments and into renewables the future would be unrecognizably changed and that would become the bedrock of our economic success.

By contrast, those who believe renewables have potential, but maybe not enough to take the place of conventional energy sources, advocate for a cautious approach. These are the hybrids. Loosely, their vision is that we should continue to develop and sell fossil fuels, but we should strive to sell them around the world while we simultaneously wean ourselves off those carbon-intensive goods by using more renewable energy here at home.

Their vision for the future is one where Canada remains one of the leading suppliers of conventional energy to the world and then uses the wealth generated from that economic export to transform our domestic energy system. The underlying hope of this vision is that in the process of transforming our own system we will develop the skills and expertise in renewable energy technology that with time will become one of our main exports to the world.

At the furthest end of the spectrum are the renewable skeptics who believe that renewable energies have limited use and application in Canada. These skeptics note that if we are going to continue to consume energy in the same way as today, then the only solution is to expand our conventional energy system by building pipelines, developing the oil sands, coordinating government regulations and establishing global energy trade networks and not significantly investing in renewables energies.

For most skeptics, renewable energy may be appropriate for some smaller, remote communities that do not have easy access to the energy grid—such as those on islands—but it is not a viable option for the vast majority of Canadians. They argue that even if we do increase the development of wind and solar energies, for example, they will always have to be backstopped with a conventional energy like natural gas because of the intermittent nature of the sun and wind and our insatiable demand for energy.

This central role of renewables in the energy vision is interesting for two reasons. First, because where a person falls on this renewable energy spectrum can’t be determined by their occupation or their industry. There are environmentalists who are renewable skeptics and oil and gas executives who are renewable optimists. Second, because this trend indicates a possible first step in creating a national vision for energy. If we as a country can come to a fact-based and informed understanding of what the potential for renewable energy is in Canada, it could make the path forward much more visible for us as a country.

Where people stand on the potential for renewables is pivotal in their vision for our energy future. This issue has the ability to cut through many of the other debates and questions that surround our energy future and can restructure the conversation.

So, where do you fall on the spectrum? Are you an optimist, a hybrid or a skeptic? Why?

A vision for Canada’s energy future, based on one-on-one conversations with some of western Canada’s leading energy and environmental experts, is explored in a forthcoming Canada West Foundation publication entitled “Catching a Rising Tide: A Western Energy Vision for Canada,” which will be released on October 12, 2011.

by Shawna Ritchie, Policy Analyst

In a recent article in the Calgary Herald, the Canadian Diabetes Association (CDA) warned that the cases, and the costs, of diabetes will balloon in Alberta if the government doesn’t take aggressive action.

Michael Cloutier, president and CEO of the CDA, cautions that the burden of diabetes is rising sharply in Alberta. He attributes this to “a growing population and because many immigrants are from Asian or South Asian background and others born with a higher predisposition to the disease.”

Diabetes is a growing problem in Canada and I commend them for speaking out. I was struck, however, by a surprising omission. Nowhere did they mention or discuss the prevalence of diabetes in the Canadian Aboriginal population (unless that is what is meant by, “others born with a higher predisposition?”), which seems like a very large oversight. Here’s why:

• Diabetes has become so prevalent in Canadian Aboriginal communities, particularly in First Nations communities, that the National Aboriginal Diabetes Association says it has “reached epidemic levels.”
• The rates of diabetes diagnosis are three to five times higher in Aboriginal populations than in the general population. 
• In a study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal in 2010, Dr. Roland Dyck of the University of Saskatchewan revealed that by the age of 60 almost half of First Nations women and more than 40 per cent of First Nations men have diabetes!
• The rates of Aboriginal diabetes are expected to continue to increase as Aboriginal peoples typically develop the disease at much younger ages, and as children and teenagers—who make up almost half the Aboriginal population—become adults.

This is a particularly acute issue for western Canada, which is home to the majority Canada’s Aboriginals, both in absolute terms and in terms of population percentages.

For example, in 2009 Manitoba released the results of a 20-year study on diabetes in the province, with an emphasis on diabetes in the First Nations population. Based on what they learned, they forecast that the number of First Nations diabetes cases will increase three-fold in the next 20 years resulting in a prevalence rate of 27% in the province—more than one in four of the population.

Because diabetes is a disease with many side effects, this same study estimates that over the next 20 years, as rates of diabetes increase, there will be “a 10-fold increase in the rate of cardiovascular disease; a 5-fold increase in strokes; 10 times as many dialysis starts; 10 times the rate of lower extremity amputations; and 5 times the rate of blindness” in the province.

Rising diabetes rates will have tremendous impacts on the economy and health care requirements of Manitoba. This is also ominous for Saskatchewan and Alberta, which have similar proportions of Aboriginal peoples.  

The reality is, you can’t talk about diabetes in western Canada and ignore diabetes in the Aboriginal population. Not only because the rates are so high and the complications so severe. But also because effective solutions for diabetes in Aboriginal communities must take into account their unique cultural and geographical situation.  

In many developed countries, Aboriginal peoples fall behind the rest of the population in a host of health, education and prosperity indicators. Diabetes rates amongst Aboriginal peoples in Canada are a symptom of these broader and deeply entrenched set of issues. As such, diabetes must be tackled as part of an integrated public policy strategy for Aboriginal Canadians.    

It isn’t enough to launch an education campaign about the importance of following the Canada Food Guide, when many of those foods are not part of traditional Aboriginal diets and when many Aboriginal communities are in isolated areas that don’t have access to fresh fruits and vegetables for most of the year. The first step to solving a complex problem is admitting that there is a problem to solve, and that’s why we need to tell the whole story of diabetes in western Canada.

This last month celebrations were held for the 125^th anniversary of two significant and unrelated events to western Canada: the creation of Banff National Park and the Métis Northwest Rebellion led by Louis Riel.

If you aren’t familiar, here’s a little bit of the history:

• Banff National Park was created in 1885, the first national park in Canada and the third such park in the world. The park was created to protect the Banff hot springs, which had been discovered by two railway workers in 1883 and were the focus of conflicting commercial plans. Instead of allowing the hot springs to be developed, John A. Macdonald declared the area a protected space. Banff is now one of the primary tourist destinations in Canada and the world, receiving almost 5 million visitors a year.
• The Northwest Rebellion was a brief and, ultimately, unsuccessful uprising by the Métis people. It was some 15 years after the Red River Rebellion, but the issues were much the same. The Métis people were concerned about the distribution of land following the influx of immigrant settlers, the effects of poverty and the fate of the buffalo, which were being hunted to extinction. There were numerous skirmishes and battles—including the Battle of Batoche, where Métis people gather annually in July to celebrate their culture and heritage—that resulted in the defeat of the Métis people and the hanging of Louis Riel.

Both of these events are significant to the character and development of western Canada and for this reason alone they are important to remember. It also strikes me that the larger issues they represent are still ones that we are dealing with as a region today. Namely, we are still trying to figure out how to balance environmental conservation with economic development, the rights and roles of aboriginal people in western Canada and everything in between.

Today, Canada’s environmental record is one of the worst among OECD countries and the West contributes substantially to that record. Across 25 environmental performance indicators used by the OECD, Canada is not among the five best countries on any measure and is among the five worst on 17 of them. We have a resource-based economy that relies on high energy and water inputs and extraction techniques that are detrimental to environmental conservation. There is an ongoing debate between industry, governments, NGOs and citizens on precisely where the balancing point between economic development and environmental conservation should be.  One of John A. MacDonald’s legacy from this debate was the creation of Banff National Park. I wonder if we can hope to be as successful in carving out a positive legacy from today’s environmental debate?

Similarly, across every measure of social and economic well being, the Aboriginal population in western Canada fares poorly compared to the general populace. According to census data the Aboriginal population is three times as likely to not have a high school education, more than twice as likely to be unemployed, roughly half of all Aboriginals survive on an annual income of $10,000 or less, over 20% report some form of physical or sexual abuse, they are much more likely to be incarcerated, have a diabetes prevalence rate of 3-5 times the general populace, and there are many other equally depressing statistics.  Many of these statistics reflect the symptoms of poverty, the same thing Aboriginal leaders were concerned about in 1885.

My point is that we have been dealing with the similar issues around the environment and Aboriginals for 125 years. While we pause to recognize these historic events, now is perhaps also a good time for new, out of the box, thinking and creative approaches. We should be looking very carefully at the policies and programs of other countries (e.g., Australia and New Zealand) with similar challenges to find and implement their best practices. Maybe we should create a policy platform to educate and then employ aboriginal people in environmental conservation. That might help both the social conditions of Canadian aboriginal peoples and our environmental record.

Whatever we do, we need to get serious about it now, 125 years seems long enough.

Posted by: Shawna Ritchie

Over 40 years ago J.M.S. Careless wrote that “the experience of regionalism remains prominent and distinctive in Canadian history—time has tended less to erode it than to develop it.” This observation holds true, regionalism continues to be prominent in the national dialogue to this day. We regularly hear that the West is distinct from the center, the North is not the same as Atlantic Canada and so on.

Now, granted there are regional differences, but are they really as acute as some make them out to be?

Canadians have been certain for so long that we are regionally divided that we’ve dedicated significant portions of our governmental systems to accommodate regionalism. Our Senate is a good example. One of the primary purposes of the Senate is to provide regional representation and this is done through the division of seats. As such, the four traditional regions (Ontario, Quebec, the Maritime provinces and the western provinces) all get 24 seats each, Newfoundland and Labrador gets six and each of the territories gets one. This formula remains static regardless of population shifts so, theoretically, even if the population of the West doubled, these numbers wouldn’t change.

Our electoral system is another example. There are few redeeming features of first-past-the-post as far as electoral systems go, but the one thing it does really, really well is reward geographically concentrated or regionally based parties. That’s why we have a party like the Bloc Québécois and why the Reform Party was able to make such a dramatic entrance onto the federal scene via the West. These parties were able to get their foot (and leg and torso) in the door because our electoral system caters to regionally concentrated parties.

As long as we are comfortable with the notion that region is the most important characteristic of Canadians, this is all well and good. But what if we aren’t sure?

Hear me out: when one of the main functions of the Senate is to represent regional interests, that sends a message that the most important characteristic about you, from the government’s point of view, is whether you live in Quebec, Nova Scotia or British Columbia. That is more important than any other identity you might have including your gender, religious beliefs, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, etc. We have designed a political system wherein these identities are of secondary importance to where you live.

This raises an interesting question: are the political institutions and systems we have in place a reflection of the regional differences that exist in this country, or, do they actually contribute to the continued perception of regional divisiveness by masking complexity and elevating geography to a higher level of importance than other forms of identity?

As an example of how complexity can be masked, take a look at the electoral distribution map of Canada. At first glance, there appears to be quite a bit that differentiates an Ontarian from a Saskatchewanian based on their different voting behaviors. Western Canada is a veritable sea of Conservative blue, Quebec is dominated by the Bloc Québécois and Atlantic Canada is varying shades of Liberal red. From that perspective, there appears to be quite a bit that separates any given person in Alberta from any given person in PEI.

This is not, however, an accurate reflection of the variance of Canadian perspectives and ideologies. In the 2008 federal election, the Conservatives might have received 96% of the seats in Alberta, but they only received 65% of the vote (that is, 65% of the 53% who bothered to vote). Similarly, in PEI the Liberals got 75% of the seats, but only 48% of the vote. Our first-past-the-post electoral system exaggerates the differences between regions and helps to encourage political parties to focus on regional strengths. There are undoubtedly regional differences of ideology and thought, but they are not as dramatic as they may first appear due to the masking effect of our current political system.

As a thought experiment, if Canada changed over to a more proportional system of voting and we made the Senate representative of cultural, linguistic, and religious diversity, what effect do you think that would have on our understanding of regions?

Posted By: Shawna Ritchie