Canada West Foundation Blog

By: Stephanie Shewchuk

When the Economist Intelligence Unit released the latest version of its Global Liveability Report two weeks ago, three Canadian cities were listed in the top five of the 140 cities surveyed. The Global Liveability Report, which originated as a means of testing whether Human Resource departments needed to assign a hardship allowance as part of ex-pat relocation packages, ranked Vancouver as third, Calgary as fourth and Toronto as fifth in the list of the world’s most liveable cities.

The top cities do well on a variety of criteria, including stability, health care, culture and environment, education, and infrastructure. While the quality of the environment is not the only measure that matters in these rankings, it certainly is a major draw for those who live and work in a city. The ability to commute by cycling on dedicated pathways, for example, or to handily access urban green space contributes to community sustainability, ecosystem stability and an overall sense of civic well-being. This is precisely why environmental initiatives should be actively supported by policymakers.

Environmental initiatives are not simply ‘nice to have’; they are must-haves for cities that are constantly competing to attract and retain the best and brightest talent. Cultivating a healthy and vibrant setting for residents fosters economic competitiveness while at the same time protecting and preserving the natural environment. Vancouver, it was cited in the report, has begun work this year on an “Evergreen” mass transit line and is considering measures such as scramble intersections and road tolls to counteract congestion. Calgary, which has previously been named as the top eco-city in the world by the consultancy firm Mercer, has a C-Train system entirely powered by wind energy, as well as one of the most extensive recreational pathway networks in North America.

As it stands, plenty of good work is being done across the country that speaks to ‘triple-bottom line’ policy-making, which equally weighs the environmental, economic and social considerations of proposed policies. Many cities in western Canada, including Vancouver, Victoria, Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, Saskatoon and Winnipeg, have formally adopted this approach into their municipal operations as a means of promoting environmental initiatives while respecting the economic and social dimensions of such decisions. Furthermore, municipal officials are finding that environmental initiatives often have positive financial impacts. Reducing building emissions through green design, for example, results in lower energy bills in the long run.

This is not to say we should sit back and rest on our laurels. All cities, regardless of their ranking or reputation, have the opportunity to be greener. With over 80 per cent of Canadians living in urban areas, environmental improvement in cities stands to impact the overwhelming majority of the population. Canadian cities should capitalize on these current gains and focus on the future expansion of environmental initiatives, as indeed many already are. Technologies which were once considered cutting edge—district energy systems, wastewater heat recovery systems and biomass combustion systems, to name a few—are becoming more the norm from Vancouver to Halifax.

Without a doubt, liveability means different things to different people, and a city’s likeability does not always necessarily correspond to its liveability. It can generally be said, however, that environmental initiatives have a positive influence on the quality of life a city has to offer. In celebrating our region’s successes, let’s hope more of the same is encouraged in the years ahead.

Canada West Foundation hosts Bridging the Gap: Shifting Urban Environmental Policy into Action on September 25th at the Telus Convention Centre. For more information, click here.

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: Stephanie Shewchuk

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

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

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

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

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

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

By: 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

A new report released by the Canada West Foundation today summarizes interviews with 23 of the leading minds on how to marry resource development with environmental protection. Keeping Pace: Improving Environmental Decision-Making in Canada is based on input from former senior bureaucrats, former environment ministers, internationally renowned scientists, natural resource industry representatives and ENGO leaders. From former federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice and internationally-recognized scientist David Schindler to original founding member of Greenpeace Patrick Moore and Suncor VP Gordon Lambert, the combined experience with environmental decision-making among interview participants totals well over 400 years.

Considering the diverse background of these Canadian thought leaders there was surprising agreement, especially on three overarching themes:

First, everyone agreed that environmental decision-making in Canada needs improvement—full stop. We are not at the top of our game when it comes to environmental stewardship in the resource sector.

Second, improving environmental decision-making is not about fixing the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the National Energy Board, the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board, BC Environment or some other government department or regulatory agency. Environmental decision-making has to be viewed in a broader policy context. Some changes are needed to the regulatory framework, but it is a small piece of the pie.

Unfortunately the regulatory framework is taking the brunt of the criticism right now. It shouldn’t. Other components of the decision-making process such as regional plans, monitoring and compliance, strategic plans, clear goals and objectives, political leadership, meaningful consultation/collaboration are much more important. These elements have not kept pace with the public interest.

Third, we have moved from a relatively simple world into a much more complex one. The difference was described as a shift from “environmental challenges 1.0 to 2.0.” The 2.0 label has been famously applied to the World Wide Web to highlight the shift from passive viewing of websites (Web 1.0) to active online interaction and collaboration (Web 2.0). The web has gone from emails, news groups, desktop computers and basic websites to eBay, PayPal, instant messaging, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia, 500,000+ apps, mobile Internet devices and cloud programming. Environmental challenges have gone from a relatively straightforward set of problems and solutions to situations characterized by a wide range of stakeholders, heated rhetoric, competing scientific claims, incomplete information and responses that require broad social change and/or significant economic costs. Hence, we need to upgrade our environmental decision-making mechanisms.

You can download this timely new report for free from the Canada West Foundation website by clicking here.

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.

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: 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.