Canada West Foundation Blog

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.

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: 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: 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 

The Okanagan Valley. For many, these two words can conjure up an image of green orchards filled with fruit, endless vineyards and an idyllic landscape.

When driving through or flying over the Okanagan, the scale of the four major lakes that sit in the middle of the valley are breathtaking. It’s almost unexpected that there would be so much water inland, and in such a dry part of Canada.

But although everything seems to be going well on the surface, there is a growing wave of concern among decision-makers in the Valley.

Increasing population and development are putting new pressures on the Okanagan’s water resources. More people are demanding water, but the supply is fixed—a supply facing its own challenges due to climate change, invasive species such as milfoil (aquatic weeds) and mysis shrimp and increasing amounts of contamination from pesticides and livestock.

Many people in the Valley’s twelve municipalities, three regional districts and four First Nations bands rely on tourism and agriculture for their bread and butter. Ensuring that the water needs of these sectors are met is essential to maintaining a vibrant Okanagan economy. But can all the demands be met? Should some individuals or sectors make sacrifices? And who should make these prickly decisions?

Given these pressures, many are questioning the way water is currently allocated, priced and monitored. For example, there are no permits or regulations protecting groundwater in the province of British Columbia. This is likely to change in the coming year: next fall, the provincial government is expected to put forth new legislation that will amend the province’s one hundred year old Water Act.

One thing is certain: water management in the Okanagan Valley needs to change in order to satisfy the demand of a complicated array of stakeholders and to sustain the local economy. How this will come about is yet to be seen. It’ll be interesting to follow along and see what changes in the next year—BC might set an example for the rest of Canada, or they might not. Only time will tell.

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.