FCM Policy Development Guide

8/6/2019 FCM Policy Development Guide

1/139

HALIFAX2011

74th Annual Conferenceand Municipal ExpoJune 3-6, 2011

Strong CitieS,

Strong CommunitieS,

Strong Canada

Halifax, Nova Scotia

PoliCy develoPment guide


2/139


3/139

About the Policy Development Guide

I am pleased to introduce the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCMs) PolicyDevelopment Guide for our 74th Annual Conference.

This guide provides you with all the information you need to contribute to our centralpurpose: to be your voice in Ottawa. Since 1901, we have represented the interestsof Canadian municipalities on policy and program matters that fall within federal

jurisdiction. To continue to do this well, we need to hear from you about your keypriorities and concerns.

Saturday, June 4, is FCMs designated Policy Development Day at our AnnualConference. There, you will have the opportunity to hold FCMs Board of Directorsaccountable for meeting your past years priorities. You will also be able to providedirect input to setting our policy priorities for the coming year.

Section I: Resolutions Plenary (Saturday morning)

The first section of the guide will inform you about our resolutions session. Thissession will be held first thing in the morning on Saturday, June 4. Our resolutionsprocess allows member municipalities to bring their specific concerns and proposalsforward to the entire membership, in order to directly influence our policy positions.This section of the guide outlines the procedures guiding the entire resolutionsprocess and the conduct of the resolution session itself. This section also containsdetails on the resolutions that will be debated.

Section II: Policy Forums (Saturday mid-morning and afternoon)

The second section of the guide provides information on the nine policy forums takingplace during the morning and afternoon of Saturday, June 4. At these forums, you willbe able to engage directly in the work of the standing committees and forums of ourBoard of Directors. The policy forums will provide primary leadership and oversight ofour plans and progress within each of our nine priority areas. Each forum sectioncontains the following: an agenda; a short annual report on the priorities andprogress of that committee over the past year; a policy statement for that committee(for information only); and a list of standing committee members.

Brock CarltonChief Executive Officer, FCM


4/139

Page 2 of 134 2011 POLICY DEVELOPMENT GUIDEFederation of Canadian Municipalities


5/139

2011 POLICY DEVELOPMENT GUIDE Page 3 of 134Federation of Canadian Municipalities

Table of Contents

Page

Section 1: Resolutions Plenary (Saturday, June 4 at 8 a.m.)Resolutions Plenary procedures ............................................................... 7

Resolutions for debate ............................................................................. 9

Resolutions for information only (not for debate) .................................... 17

Emergency resolutions for debate ........................ To be distributed on site

Detailed Procedures for Resolutions (for information) ............................ 23

Section 2: Policy Forums (Saturday, June 4)

10 11 a.m.

Environmental Issues and Sustainable Development ..................... 29Municipal Finance and Intergovernmental Arrangements ............... 47Social-Economic Development ....................................................... 61

2:15 3:15 p.m.Municipal Infrastructure and Transportation Policy ......................... 71

Increasing Womens Participation in Municipal Government ........... 91Community Safety and Crime Prevention ....................................... 97

3:30 4:30 p.m.

Rural Issues .................................................................................. 105Northern and Remote Issues ........................................................ 115

3:30 5 p.m.

International Relations .................................................................. 123


6/139



7/139


Section 1: RESOLUTIONS PLENARY

Saturday, June 4 at 8 a.m.


8/139



9/139


Resolutions Plenary Procedures

Introduction

The resolutions process gives members the opportunity to directly influence the direction of FCMspublic policy and advocacy work, as well as the organization itself. Generally, resolutions are focused

on issues that are the direct responsibility or concern of Canadian municipalities and that fall within thejurisdiction of the federal government, and/or provincial and territorial governments acting at the inter-provincial/territorial level.

The resolution process is described in the Procedures for Resolutions, which is included at the end ofthe Resolutions section. Roberts Rules of Ordergoverns the conduct of this session. Additional keyrules and procedures for this session are summarized here:

Additional Procedures for the Resolutions Plenary Session at the Annual Conference

1. Consent Agenda:Definition and purpose: To facilitate plenary debate, the Board has packaged selectresolutions into a Consent Agenda to be considered as a single block in one motion (please

see page 9 for consent agenda items).Removing items from the Consent Agenda: Resolutions can be removed from the ConsentAgenda, for separate consideration, upon a motion by any member, and with a majority voteof Conference delegates. Only the mover will speak to such a motion. The remainder of theConsent agenda shall be voted on as one motion.

2. Moving and seconding resolutions not required: All resolutions in the Policy DevelopmentGuide, as well as emergency resolutions that are provided onsite aredeemed to be duly movedand seconded by the originating municipality or provincial/territorial municipal association.

3. Speaker guidelines:Sponsors: A representative from the sponsoring municipality or municipal association will begiven the first opportunity to speak.

Eligibility and time limit: Only FCM members in good standing are entitled to speak from thefloor. All speakers must identify themselves and their municipality or association, and mustconfine their remarks to a maximum of two minutes. No delegate will be permitted to speakmore than once on any resolution until other delegates wishing to speak have been heard.

4. Motions to amend and refer:Amendments will be shown on the overhead screen to ensure the movers wording is reflectedin the official record; corrections can be made as a point of order or providing writtencorrections to the Chair.Long amendments to a resolution should be submitted in written form to the Chair to ensurethe proper wording is reflected in the official record.Motions to refer a resolution will be in order at any time. Debate on a motion to refer must beconfined to the merits of the referral motion.

5. Voting:At the close of debate, a vote will be called on the Operative Clause(s) section of a resolution.Only duly Accredited Representatives are entitled to vote on resolutions. They will do so byshowing their voting credentials when the count is taken.


10/139


6. Categorization of resolutions:Resolutions submitted for FCMs consideration are placed in the following categories to guidesubsequent action:

Category A Municipal issuesThis category contains resolutions on issues that are the direct responsibility or concern ofCanadian municipalities, and that fall within the jurisdiction of the federal government, and/or theprovincial and territorial governments acting at the inter-provincial/territorial level. Category Aresolutions adopted with concurrence will be sent to the relevant government minister, and willguide future FCM policy positions.

Category B Issues not within municipal or federal jurisdictionThis category contains resolutions that are not a municipal responsibility, and/or which do not fallwithin federal or inter-provincial jurisdiction. No action is taken on category B resolutions.

Category C FCM issuesThis category contains resolutions directed at FCM members or at FCM as an organization.Category C resolutions adopted with concurrence will be forwarded to the Executive Committeefor action; the Executive Committee will report on its progress to the Board.

Category D In accordance with existing FCM policyThis category contains resolutions on specific matters dealt with by FCM in the previous threeyears that are in accordance with FCMs standing policy. These resolutions will be received forinformation only.

Category E Not in accordance with existing FCM policyThis category contains resolutions on specific matters that have been considered by FCM withinthe previous three years and are not in accordance with FCM policy. These resolutions will bereceived for information only.


11/139


Resolutions for debate

Page

Consent Agenda resolutions (to be considered as a block, unless a resolution

is removed for separate debate)

ENV11.2.04 ..................................................................................................... 11Funding for Flood Protection for Climate Change Adaptation

SED11.2.04..................................................................................................... 12Immigrant Settlement Services

CSCP11.2.02 .................................................................................................. 13Administration and Oversight of Medical Cannabis

RF11.2.01 ...................................................................................................... 14Canada Post Policy on Unaddressed Admail

Category D and E resolutions for information only, not for debate .......... 17

Emergency resolutions ..................................................................... Provided on site


12/139



13/139


CONSENT AGENDA RESOLUTIONS

January 25, 2011

ENV11.2.04

FUNDING FOR FLOOD PROTECTION FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION

WHEREAS Coastal flood protection works are deficient in many areas throughout Canada and, inmany areas, support critical links in the national transportation network; and

WHEREAS Climate change is increasing the risk of flooding in many communities due to long termsea level rise and increasing storm intensity; and

WHEREAS The Provincial governments have identified climate change adaptation as a key priority inthe coming decades; therefore, be it

RESOLVED That FCM urge the Federal government to work with provincial, territorial and municipalgovernments to develop a long-term funding program to assist local governments with climate changeadaptation, particularly for flood protection.

The Corporation of Delta, British Columbia

Background Research and Assessment:

Background

The Board of directors has not previously considered the issue of climate change adaptation in coastalcommunities.

Issue

Sea level rise is one of the many projected impacts of climate change. According to climate models,sea level is expected to rise by 0.5 m (50 cm) between now and 2100. Increased frequency andintensity of rainfall event is also expected with a rise in global temperatures posing flooding risks tocoastal and non-coastal communities.

In some coastal areas, sea level rise is already taking place in Halifax, sea level has risen by 0.3 m(30 cm) in the last century. The risks posed by sea level rise include potential damage to coastalproperty and structures; the loss of local ecosystems, including coastal marshes; saltwater intrusion tolocal freshwater supplies; and the permanent loss of some areas of land, leading to the displacementof human settlements. Municipalities will also have to manage negative impacts on local enterprise,including tourism and ports, increased insurance costs and negatively impacted cultural systems.Many Canadian communities are already dealing with the impacts of sea level rise, increased stormsurges and coastal erosion.

In non-coastal areas, the increased frequency of intense storms is having serious financial impacts oncommunities as storm and combined sewers become overwhelmed. The Insurance Bureau of Canadareported in 2010 that claims for water damage had risen from 20% to 50% of all claims, to reach atotal of $1.32 billion/year.

Environment Canada estimated that it will cost between $80 and $90 billion to upgrade the countryswater, related infrastructure; the need for climate change adaptation will only increase this estimate.


14/139


Current Status

Currently, there are no funding programs specifically targeting the need for communities to adapt theirinfrastructure to climate change. However, individual communities are taking measures to plandevelopment around anticipated sea level rise and around increase flooding risks. In resource-limitedcommunities, with smaller tax bases, there is often insufficient capacity to build resilience intoinfrastructure systems to adapt to climate change.

Analysis

Our position has been that Canada has a $123-billion infrastructure deficit which is expected toincrease significantly due to the added pressures from climate change. In the Northwest Territories, forexample, the need to adapt infrastructure to climate change is expected to double its infrastructuredeficit.

Canadas water related infrastructure deficit is estimated at $31 billion, and a much greater amount willneed to be invested to adapt systems to increased local population and to climate change. Coastalcommunities face unique challenges in a context where sea level is expected to rise and adaptationmeasures which range from dykes to displacing certain residential and commercial developments will be expensive. Municipalities do not have the resources to manage these significant costs on their

own.

Although Canada is currently in a period of fiscal restraint and deficit fighting, it is important for allorders of government to work together to consider the potential impacts of a changing climate on localcommunities and to develop a long-term plan to finance the adaptation of Canadas infrastructure topotential sea-level rise and flood damage due to increased storm intensity.

Assessment and Recommendation(s)

Standing Committee on Environmental Issues and Sustainable Development recommends: CategoryA; concurrence.

2011 MARCH BOARD RECOMMENDATION: This resolution be referred to the Annual Conference

with a Category A; concurrence.

2011 ANNUAL CONFERENCE DECISION:

March 3, 2011March Emergency Resolution

SED11.2.04IMMIGRANT SETTLEMENT SERVICES

WHEREAS The Government of Canada has provided immigrant settlement funds for programs suchas public libraries across Canada, enabling new Canadians opportunities to more rapidly integrate intoCanadian society; and

WHEREAS Municipalities use the moderate funds allocated to provide many services, including libraryservices to new Canadian, therefore, be it

RESOLVED That the Federation of Canadian Municipalities strongly urge the Government of Canadato restore and increase funding for settlement services across Canada.

Ontario Caucus andStanding Committee on Social-Economic Development


15/139


Standing Committee on Social-Economic Development recommendation: Category A; concurrence.

MARCH 2011 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: this resolution be referred to theAnnual Conference with a Category A; concurrence.

MARCH 2011 BOARD RECOMMENDATION: this resolution be referred to the Annual Conferencewith a Category A; concurrence.


January 21, 2011CSCP11.2.02ADMINISTRATION AND OVERSIGHT OF MEDICAL CANNABIS

WHEREAS The federal medical cannabis program administered through Health Canada's MarihuanaMedical Access Division does not satisfy the constitutional rights of critically and chronically ill patientsto access marihuana for medicinal use; and

WHEREAS The use of cannabis by legitimate cannabis patients is a health issue, and as such shouldbe under the legislative purview of Provincial governments; therefore, be it

RESOLVED That FCM lobby the federal government to decentralize the administration and oversightof legitimate medical cannabis use and production from federal authority to Provincial health ministriesas part of their public and personal health mandate.

City of Victoria, British Columbia


Background

Administered by Health Canada, the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) permit accessto marihuana for medical use for Canadians needing such medical treatment. Once approved underthe MMAR, individuals have three options for obtaining marihuana:

1. They can apply under the MMAR to access Health Canadas supply of marihuana;2. They can apply for a personal use production licence under which they can cultivate and

process marihuana for their own use; or3. They can designate someone with a designated-person production licence to cultivate and

process marihuana on their behalf.

Issue

The sponsor of the resolution proposes that the use of marihuana for medical reasons is a health

issue and that it should therefore be under the legislative purview of provincial governments.

Current Status

Health Canada has publicly acknowledged having a backlog of applications and experiencing delay inapproving for the Medical Marihuana Access Program.

Analysis

The sponsor offers two rationale in support of its resolution:


16/139


1. The Medical Marihuana Access Program does not satisfy the constitutional rights of criticallyand chronically ill patients to access marihuana for medicinal use; and

2. Medical marihuana is a health issue and should therefore be controlled by provincialgovernments.

Although the use of medical marijuana is certainly a health issue, it is also an issue of criminal justice,since right now marijuana is a controlled substance under federal legislation. To legislatively enablethe medical use of marijuana, the federal government must be involved at least initially, although thereis clearly space for provincial/territorial governments to stipulate how medical marijuana is used. Thisappears to be an issue of shared rather than sole jurisdiction.

The sponsor has not made any link between this issue and a municipal interest or responsibility.


The grounds presented by the sponsor to support the resolution do not link this issue with an indirector direct municipal interest or responsibility.

2011 MARCH BOARD RECOMMENDATION: This resolution be referred to the Annual Conferencewith a Category B; issue not within municipal jurisdiction.


November 16, 2010

RF11.2.01CANADA POST POLICY ON UNADDRESSED ADMAIL

WHEREAS Canada Post will not deliver unaddressed admail to addresses which have a block onthis type of mail; and

WHEREAS Canada Post policy includes exemptions from blocking for unaddressed mailings from

the House of Commons, provincial chief electoral officers, municipal electoral officers and ElectionsCanada; and

WHEREAS Local governments may, from time to time, undertake bulk mail-outs, such as publicopinion surveys, intended to reach all constituents; therefore, be it

RESOLVED That FCM urge Canada Post to amend its unaddressed admail policy to include anexemption for bulk mail-outs by local governments.

Union of British Columbia Municipalities:Corporation of Delta, British Columbia


Issue

The sponsor of the resolution proposes that FCM ask Canada Post to change their unaddressed mailpolicy on the basis that bulk mail-outs by local governments deserve an exemption. FCM has neverconsidered a resolution on this issue.


17/139


Background

Under its Consumers Choice Program, Canada Post offers its clients the option to elect whether ornot they wish to receive unaddressed mail. The Canada Post notice on that matter specifically warnsconsumers that they will no longer receive municipal mailouts such as municipal or provincial/territorialservice notices upon signing up. The notice also specifies that there are exemptions for unaddressedmailouts from the House of Commons, provincial chief electoral officers, municipal electoral officersand Elections Canada.

Analysis

Canada Post provides an exemption to all orders of government for election matters. That is,municipal governments are being treated the same as provincial/territorial and federal governments,which is a principle we constantly seek. Although the federal government has carved out specialconsiderations for Parliamentary mail not only are all House of Commons mailouts exempt from theblocking provision, these mailouts are not assessed any postage either their exemptions are stilllimited to House of Commons materials. Unaddressed mail sent by government departments,including surveys and the like, would still be subject to blocks, just as municipal andprovincial/territorial unaddressed admail.

Since municipal governments are being treated largely the same as other orders of government by thispolicy, and since citizens have been warned that all government-related mailouts save electionsnotices, will be affected by a block request, then FCMs grounds and case to intervene aresignificantly weakened.


The grounds presented by the sponsor to support the resolution do not make a strong enough case towarrant FCMs involvement to change Canada Posts policy on unaddressed admail.

2011 MARCH BOARD RECOMMENDATION: This resolution be referred to the Annual Conferencewith a Category A; non-concurrence.



18/139



19/139


CATEGORY D RESOLUTIONS in accordance with existing FCM policyFor information only, not for debate

November 30, 2010

ENV11.2.02PROPOSED WASTEWATER SYSTEMS EFFLUENT REGULATIONS

WHEREAS The UBCM supports the efforts to harmonize the municipal wastewater effluentregulations across Canada, as outlined in the Canada-Wide Strategy for the Management of MunicipalWastewater Effluent (CCME Strategy) and as detailed in Environment Canadas ProposedWastewater Systems Effluent Regulations (Regulations); and

WHEREAS The CCME Strategy cannot be completed without adequate senior government fundingcontribution; therefore, be it

RESOLVED That the UBCM convey to the federal and provincial governments that local governmentscannot commit to the wastewater treatment plan upgrades, as required in the CCME Strategy and the

Regulations, without a funding formula that includes funding contributions from the provincial andfederal governments.

Union of British Columbia Municipalities:Regional District of Greater Vancouver, British Columbia

Category D in accordance with existing FCM policy, presented for information only.

November 16, 2010FIG11.2.04LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVENUE

WHEREAS British Columbia local governments are facing insurmountable infrastructure deficits, in

terms of maintaining their current and aging infrastructure, such as water and wastewater systems;transportation systems; transit, solid-waste management, as well as community, recreational, culturaland social infrastructure; and

WHEREAS Local governments current ability to generate revenue through property taxes, user feesand grants is woefully inadequate to meet the demands being placed on them, which require a reliableand dedicated source of revenue that grows with the economy and can significantly reduce the needfor ongoing and unsustainable increases to property taxes, user fees and water and sewer rates;therefore, be it

RESOLVED That UBCM call on the federal government to share revenue with BC local governmentsequivalent to 1% of the HST on an annual basis to help them fund important services andinfrastructure to their citizens, as the local government deems is in the best interest of the community.

Union of British Columbia Municipalities:City of Prince Rupert, British Columbia



20/139


January 21, 2011

SED11.2.03SUPPORT FOR NATIONAL HOUSING STRATEGY(BILL C-304)

WHEREAS In every major city in Canada it is hard to avoid the shocking reality of homelessness eventhough we live in one of the richest countries in the world. Homeless people on the streets are only thetip of the housing crisis iceberg; and

WHEREAS Bill C-304, an Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing, is aprivate members bill introduced by Libby Davies, NDP MP for the riding of Vancouver East; and

WHEREAS The bill calls for a national housing strategy to ensure that the cost of housing in Canadadoes not prevent individuals and families from meeting other basic needs, including food, clothing andaccess to education. The bill also calls on the government to provide temporary emergency housingand shelter in the event of disasters and crises; and

WHEREAS Bill C-304is scheduled for third (and final) reading and vote in the House of Commons onOctober 20, 2011; and

WHEREAS FCM stresses the need for a national action plan on housing and homelessness, involvingall orders of government to encourage flexible, local and long-term solutions so that all Canadian canlive in decent affordable housing; therefore, be it

RESOLVED That FCM urge the federal government to support Bill C-304, direct the Minister toconsult with provincial and territorial ministers of the Crown responsible for municipal affairs andhousing and with representatives of municipalities, Aboriginal communities, non-profit and privatesector housing providers and civil society organizations, including those that represent groups in needof adequate housing, and establish a national housing strategy designed to respect, protect, promoteand fulfill the right to adequate housing.

City of Victoria, British Columbia


November 16, 2010

MIT11.2.03EXPANSION OF INFRASTRUCTURE GRANT PROGRAMS

WHEREAS numerous local government throughout British Columbia are experiencing significantissues and challenges in relation to local government facilities, in terms of aging infrastructure andinadequate space and functionality; and

WHEREAS many, if not all, major infrastructure grant programs do not contain significant fundingcomponents for the extensive upgrading, renovation, reconstruction and new construction of essentiallocal government facilities; therefore, be it

RESOLVED That Union of British Columbia Municipalities lobby the Province and the federalgovernment for the addition of significant funding components in the infrastructure grant programs toassist local governments with major facilities projects such as municipal halls, fire halls, public safetybuildings and public works yards.

Union of British Columbia Municipalities:District of Central Saanich, British Columbia



21/139


November 16, 2010

MIT11.2.04LONG-TERM ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF SHORT-LINE RAILWAYS

WHEREAS CanadianPacific Railwayhas issued a Notice of Sale or Discontinuance of Railway Linein accordance with the Canadian Transportation Act for the recently closed rail line betweenArmstrong and Sicamous; and

WHEREAS Rail provides a cost effective and reliable transportation option required for thedevelopment of economically sustainable, environmentally responsible and financially viablecommunities throughout British Columbia and Canada and is fundamental to the growth strategies andeconomic development plans of many local and regional jurisdictions; therefore, be it

RESOLVED That the federal and provincial governments commit to a funding program that willsupport the economic viability of short-line railways, thereby maintaining valuable railwaytransportation infrastructure and corridors; be it further

RESOLVED That the federal government commit to protecting rail rights-of-way during discontinuanceto ensure that all communities, the Province of British Columbia and the Government of Canada

maintain transportation options to respond to economic development and community needs into thefuture.

Union of British Columbia Municipalities:City of Vernon, British Columbia


November 16, 2010

MIT11.2.05EXPANDED TIMEFRAMES FOR INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION SPENDING

WHEREAS Both the provincial and federal governments have granted extraordinary grants to some

local governments in order to stimulate employment and build much needed infrastructure; and

WHEREAS These grants come with short timelines for the immediate implementation that bringcapital and planning challenges to the local governments that result in waste of taxpayer dollars;therefore, be it

RESOLVED That the Union of BC Municipalities petition the provincial and federal government toimplement flexibility into the deadlines and deal with each applicant on a case by case basis in orderto maximize the effectiveness of the grants and create quality infrastructure for all Canadians.

Union of British Columbia Municipalities:City of Grand Forks, British Columbia


January 25, 2011

MIT11.2.06WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION STRUCTURES

WHEREAS Industry Canada has exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the location and structural elementsof wireless telecommunication structures in Canada; and


22/139


WHEREAS Industry Canada implemented new antenna siting and approval procedures1 aimed atimproving consultation with industry and community stakeholders, including clearer processes forpublic notification and consultation and added community involvement; and

WHEREAS There is increasing community concern about potential adverse effects on propertyvalues, aesthetics and human health from wireless telecommunication structures located in or nearresidential areas; and

WHEREAS Towers located on agricultural land can significantly impede farm operations, particularlywhen located in the middle of acreages; and

WHEREAS Municipalities have no lawful jurisdiction to regulate the location or limit the height or typeof structural support for towers on private land; therefore, be it

RESOLVED That Industry Canada be requested to review options to allow local governments tocontrol the location, height and appearance of wireless telecommunication structures that impact ormay impact residential communities.



January 25, 2011

MIT11.2.07FUNDING FOR SECONDARY CHANNEL DREDGING

WHEREAS Dredging of the Fraser River and secondary channels was conducted by Public WorksCanada until the late 1990s; and

WHEREAS The accumulation of sediment in secondary channels of the Fraser River is havingsignificant adverse economic, social and environmental impacts; therefore, be it

RESOLVED That the Federal government be requested to provide adequate annual funding toreinstate the lower Fraser River dredging program.



January 13, 2011

MIT11.2.08HIGHSPEED RAIL NEED FOR POLICY INTEGRATION AND FUNDING BETWEEN LEVELSOF GOVERNMENT

WHEREAS There is increasing use and safety pressures on our highways and an increasing publicdesire for, alternative transportation system that is efficient and cost-effective; and

WHEREAS HighSpeed Rail as discussed in the 2009 FCM Report, Sustainable Community Planningin Canada: Status & Best Practices has been identified as a feature of Sustainable CommunityPlanning; and

1CPC-2-0-03 Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems, Issue 4(January 1, 2008)


23/139


WHEREAS High Speed Rail, is an alternative transportation method that is sustainable and supportsenvironmental stewardship; and

WHEREAS High Speed Rail could provide a source of economic development and diversity; and

WHEREAS There have now been plans and proposals put forward with respect to high speedlinkages between:

Vancouver SeattleEdmonton CalgaryWindsor to Quebec City via London, Toronto, Ottawa and Montral; and

WHEREAS Municipalities in Canada are increasingly caught in a financial vice as other orders ofgovernment are transferring greater responsibilities in areas such as regional transportation systemswithout accompanying financial transfers; and

WHEREAS Provincial and/or federal governments hold back funding for municipal transportation whileactively funding highway expansion that is not supporting municipalities planning goals; therefore, beit

RESOLVED That the Federation of Canadian Municipalities urge the Government of Canada to takethe lead in developing integrated strategies, policies and funding frameworks to support thedevelopment of highspeed rail links and alternative transportation systems

City of Red Deer, Alberta



24/139


25/139


Procedures for Resolutions (for information)

Introduction

The resolutions process gives members the opportunity to directly influence the direction of FCMspublic policy and advocacy work, as well as the organization itself. Generally, resolutions should be

focused on issues that are the direct responsibility or concern of Canadian municipalities and that fallwithin the jurisdiction of the federal government, and/or provincial and territorial governments acting atthe inter-provincial/territorial level.

Resolutions may be submitted by any municipality or provincial/ territorial-municipal association that isan FCM member in good standing, following the procedures described in sections 1 and 2 below.Resolutions must be drafted in accordance with the guidelines described in section 5. Follow upaction on adopted resolutions is determined by its category, as described in section 3, below. Theresolutions plenary session at the Annual Conference, Chaired by FCMs 2nd Vice-President, isgoverned by the procedures found in section 4.

1. General Procedures

1.1. Resolutions will be considered at the September and March meetings of FCMs National Boardof Directors, as well as the Annual Conference; in addition, FCMs Executive Committee, actingin its power on behalf of the Board, may consider resolutions in between these times if bymajority vote, it is agreed that the situation warrants.

1.2. The deadline for submission of resolutions to Board Meetings or the Annual Conference isposted on the FCM website. The deadline for resolutions submitted to the September Boardmeeting is July 5 every year. The deadline for resolutions submitted to the March BoardMeeting or Annual Conference is January 25 every year.

1.3. Resolutions received after a deadline will only be submitted for consideration to the NationalBoard of Directors or the Annual Conference if determined by the Executive Committee, at aregularly scheduled meeting, to be of an emergency nature; otherwise, these resolutions will beheld for action for the next Board meeting.

1.4. The Executive Committee will refer to, but will not be limited to, the following criteria to

determine whether a late resolution should be considered an emergency:1.4.1. The resolution addresses an issue that imposes a significant, immediate and directimpact on municipal operations;

1.4.2. The issue can be resolved in the near term through an open federal decision-makingwindow (i.e. legislative review underway; pre-budget; etc) that will close before theresolution could be considered as part of the next deadline period.

1.5. FCM staff will determine if a submitted resolution meets FCMs Procedures for Resolutionsand, if required, will contact the resolutions sponsor for any further information.

1.6. Resolutions that fall within the mandate of an FCM Standing Committee will be reviewed bythat Standing Committee; otherwise, they will be reviewed by the Executive Committee, for thepurpose of presenting recommendations to the National Board of Directors or to the AnnualConference.

1.7. Standing Committees shall recommend whether resolutions are compatible with existing policystatements and approved resolutions. This provides some measure of protection againstcontradiction or inconsistency in FCMs positions or actions.

1.8. Standing Committees, the Executive Committee or the Board may amend a resolution ifdeemed necessary, although the intent of the resolution shall remain the same.

1.9. FCM will not entertain resolutions which involve disputes between or amongmunicipal governments.

1.10. All members which have submitted resolutions shall be notified of the decision taken by theNational Board of Directors or by the delegates at the Annual Conference and of any action(s)taken by FCM.


26/139


2. Categorization of resolutions

Resolutions submitted for FCMs consideration shall be placed in the following categories toguide subsequent action:

Category A Municipal issuesThis category contains resolutions on issues that are the direct responsibility or concern of

Canadian municipalities, and that fall within the jurisdiction of the federal government, and/orthe provincial and territorial governments acting at the inter-provincial/territorial level. CategoryA resolutions adopted with concurrence will be sent to the relevant government minister, andwill guide future FCM policy positions.

Category B Issues not within municipal or federal jurisdictionThis category contains resolutions that are not a municipal responsibility, and/or which do notfall within federal or inter-provincial jurisdiction. No action is taken on category B resolutions.

Category C FCM issuesThis category contains resolutions directed at FCM members or at FCM as an organization.Category C resolutions adopted with concurrence will be forwarded to the ExecutiveCommittee for review and action; the Executive Committee will report on its progress to

the Board.Category D In accordance with existing FCM policyThis category contains resolutions on specific matters dealt with by FCM in the previous threeyears that are in accordance with FCMs standing policy. These resolutions will be received forinformation only. FCM staff are authorized to inform a sponsoring municipality that its resolutionwill be categorized as D or E.

Category E Not in accordance with existing FCM policyThis category contains resolutions on specific matters that have been considered by FCMwithin the previous three years and are not in accordance with FCM policy. These resolutionswill be received for information only. FCM staff are authorized to inform a sponsoringmunicipality that its resolution will be categorized as D or E.

3. Procedures forResolutions Submitted to the Annual Conference

3.1. The deadline for submission of resolutions to FCMs Annual Conference is posted on the FCMwebsite. Resolutions submitted by this deadline will be processed by the Standing Committeesat the March Board meeting.

3.2. Standing Committees responsible for the subject area of a resolution will determine whetherthe resolution submitted for the Annual Conference should be dealt with there. The NationalBoard of Directors must agree that the resolution is appropriate for debate by the generalmembership at the Annual Conference.

3.3. Standing Committees or the Executive Committee may recommend that resolutions previouslydealt with by the Board be submitted to the Annual Conference for consideration by the entiremembership. These resolutions may be amended to ensure that their content clearly reflects

the key issue, yet maintain its intent.3.4. Resolutions to be considered at the Annual Conference will be printed in the PolicyDevelopment Guide, which is also posted on the FCM website 14 days prior to the Conference,and distributed to delegates at the Annual Conference.

3.5. Resolutions received after the deadline that cannot be processed in time for inclusion in thePolicy Development Guide will be held for action by the National Board of Directors at its nextmeeting in September, except for those resolutions that are determined by the ExecutiveCommittee to be of an emergency nature (please see section 1.4 for emergency criteria).

3.6. Resolutions submitted after the regular deadline, as an emergency, must be received aminimum of five days prior to the first day of the conference, to allow sufficient time for staff


27/139


28/139


5.4. Background information, such as a Council report, should be submitted with resolutions. Whena resolution is not self-explanatory and when adequate information is not attached, FCM staffmay return a resolution to the sponsor with a request for additional information or clarificationbefore it is further considered.

5.5. Proof of endorsement by the sponsoring council must accompany all resolutions submittedto FCM.

5.6. All Resolutions must be submitted electronically, by e-mail, to [email protected]. Althoughscanned hardcopy document files are accepted, resolution text sent in a document format thatallows for cutting and pasting into a new file is preferred.

Adopted, June 1998 FCM Annual Conference

Revised and adopted, March 2010, National Board of Directors meeting
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


29/139


Section 2: POLICY FORUMS

Saturday, June 4 at 10 a.m.2:15 p.m.3:30 p.m.


30/139



31/139


Policy Forum onEnvironmental Issues and Sustainable Development

FORUM AGENDA

1) Opening Remarks by the Chair................................................................................... OralWelcome to the ForumReview forum agendaStanding Committee mandate and purposeIntroduction of members of the 2010/2011 Standing Committee

2) Annual report on 2010-11 priorities and activities.................................................... See below

3) Discussion of potential committee priorities for 2011-2012 .................................... Oral

4) Wrap-up (Chair) ............................................................................................................. Oral

Note: See end of Forum Agenda package for complete list of committee members.

1. 2010-2011 ANNUAL REPORT

Strategic Policy Priorities

The Standing Committee identified the following strategic policy and advocacy priorities for20102011:

Green Economy: To strengthen the municipal voice in the national climate change debate andensure that the federal government recognizes the critical role that municipalities can play inmeeting national climate change targets.

Wastewater: To ensure that standards for Environment Canadas proposed federal regulations are

manageable; and to secure a commitment to establish a long-term funding mechanism to addressthe wastewater regulations and the larger infrastructure deficit, preventing an unfair burden onmunicipal governments.

Activities and Accomplishments

Since May 2010, FCM, in partnership with the Canadian Water and Wastewater Association(CWWA), has been in a dialogue with the federal government to bring an operational perspectiveto the draft federal regulations, to make them more manageable both operationally and financially.

This dialogue has led to the removal of requirements for the elimination of combined seweroverflows the most costly proposition of the draft as well as requirements for environmentaleffects-monitoring. The release of revised regulations has been delayed by the 2011federal election.

FCM has also been in dialogue with Finance Canada and Infrastructure Canada about thedevelopment of a long-term plan for the financing of infrastructure to replace the Building CanadaFund when it expires in 2014, as well as the adoption of legislation securing the permanence ofthe Gas Tax Fund. These secure funding sources will enable municipalities to comply with thefederal wastewater regulation, among other core infrastructure needs.

FCM developed alternative cost estimates to the federal Regulatory Impact AssessmentStatement (RIAS) based on estimates provided by members.


32/139


FCM succeeded in securing commitments in the proposed March 2011 federal budget for apartnership between all orders government to develop a long-term funding strategy forinfrastructure. This strategy must contain support for meeting these proposed standards.

FCM completed research on the Municipal Role in the Green Economy, which outlines the toolsavailable to municipalities to contribute significantly to Canadas transition to a green economy. Itpresents recommendations on enabling federal policies that could accelerate local action and

national green economic transition. It also sets the stage for quantitative research to supportspecific investment recommendations.

FCM participated in the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy Research oninfrastructure and climate change adaptation for reports that have been released in 20102011. Italso presented at the Alaska Environment Forum on climate change adaptation measures taken innorthern Canada.

2011 Federal Election Activities

All federal parties have committed to long-term financing for municipalities, ranging from apermanent gas tax fund to major program envelopes with an emphasis on the need for a long-term infrastructure plan. This is a direct result of FCM advocacy efforts over the pastseveral months.

Throughout the campaign, FCM worked to highlight the need for, and importance of, allgovernments working in partnership to address the challenges facing Canadas cities andcommunities. Although the federal campaign lacked a specific environmental focus, manyinfrastructure commitments could directly benefit local government sustainable initiatives.

FCMs 2011 Election Platform highlighted a number of priorities related to thiscommittee, including:

o asking all parties to pledge to expand and entrench the growing partnership betweenfederal and municipal governments; and

o developing a long-term infrastructure plan for municipal infrastructure that:

1. indexes the federal Gas Tax Fund to keep up with economic growth;2. renews the soon-to-expire Building Canada Fund;3. pays the federal share of any new infrastructure costs downloaded to municipalities,

including the more than $20-billion cost of meeting new federal wastewaterstandards; and

4. dedicates infrastructure funding for rural, remote and northern communities and setsappropriate population thresholds.

2. POLICY STATEMENT

Introduction

Sustainable development means concurrently pursuing economic prosperity, fiscal responsibility,

environmental quality, cultural enrichment and social equity. For municipalities, it means makingfinancially sustainable strategic decisions and implementing operational changes that support broadersocial, economic, cultural and environmental objectives.

Communities need long-term economic and social security to build a more sustainable future. Thissecurity depends on environmentally sustainable development, as well as on fairly sharing our human,financial and technical resources. To make cities and communities sustainable, all orders ofgovernment must work with each other and with industry, non-governmental organizations, Aboriginalpeoples and community associations. We must also understand and recognize the diversity of


33/139


Canadas municipal sector, which includes not just big cities, but also rural, remote and northerncommunities.

Key Principles

Sustainable Community PlanningSustainable community planning looks at the long-term economic social and environmental well-beingof our communities, with the aim of improving the quality of life for citizens now and over the long term.These plans set a clear direction for the community that recognizes the diverse needs of existing andfuture residents. Through these plans, our communities coordinate and integrate developmentpractices that build resiliency and a high quality of life for the community where people want to live,work and play.

Ecosystem ManagementAn ecosystem approach to management recognizes the interrelated nature of air, land, water andliving organisms. Ecosystem management develops effective partnerships that define units ofmanagement by using natural boundaries, such as watersheds, instead of geopolitical boundaries anddepartmental divisions. This approach considers the natural environment, society and economy, andincorporates the broader concepts of sustainability.

Pollution PreventionPollution prevention should be at the centre of programs and policies delivered by all orders ofgovernment. Environmental pollution is best prevented or reduced at the source, which in turn reducesthe release of contaminants into the environment. This is important, as pollution can impair ecosystemintegrity, present risks to human health, and compromise the competitiveness of Canadas cities andcommunities. Pollution that cannot be prevented should be recycled, treated and disposed of in anenvironmentally sound manner.

Polluter-Pays PrincipleThe polluter-pays principle requires that the costs associated with environmental cleanup be borne bythe parties responsible. Municipalities should not be seen as the last line of defence forenvironmental protection.

Full-Cost AccountingFull-cost accounting integrates the internal and external costs to the environment of activities,operations, products and services. External costs include the environmental impacts of consuming agood or service. These external costs should be incorporated into municipal tax rates, so thatconsumers see the full cost of providing a service. Full-cost accounting should also reflect eachcommunitys particular challenges and cost considerations. For example, rural, remote and northerncommunities have a limited ability to generate revenue.

PartnershipMunicipalities must be fully engaged as partners in deciding on a national vision to achieve Canadasenvironmental and sustainable development objectives. As partners, municipal governments needpolicy consistency and certainty, as well as a streamlined approach to regulatory and administrative

requirements. Municipal governments also need long-term, stable and predictable funding to supportthese mutually beneficial objectives.

Measurement and ReportingAll citizens must have access to information on environmental conditions, including local data on waterquality and quantity, air quality, contaminated sites, and point and non-point sources of pollution.Environmental conditions must be measured regularly, and the results used as baseline data tobenchmark progress toward stated objectives.


34/139


FCM Policies

THE GREEN ECONOMY

In a globally competitive world, Canadas economy will ultimately have to become a green economy,delivering better returns on natural, human and economic capital investment, while reducing pollution,extracting and using fewer natural resources, and creating less waste. Municipalities can be catalysts

for this transition due to their unique-position role in determining how individuals and institutions willlive and move in an area. FCM supports the three orders of government collaborating to make thistransition a reality.

Municipal governments can play a critical role in Canadas transition to a green economy, supportingthe federal government in meeting national environmental and economic objectives. As the primaryproviders of services that range from water and sanitation, to solid waste management, communitydesign and transportation, municipal governments influence the way Canadians and Canadianbusinesses live, move and use resources.

The municipal sector has direct or indirect control over 45 per cent of greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions in Canada through its responsibility for municipal operations and solid waste managementand influence over transportation/modal split, residential/commercial and institutional buildings as well

as local industry. It can deliver the equivalent of 15 to 40 per cent of Canadas 2020 emissionsreduction target. Municipalities account for 11 per cent of Canadas water withdrawals through theirsupply of drinking water and other services to local communities. They are also responsible for thetreatment and management of wastewater and stormwater. Finally, in Canadian cities, the operationand maintenance of buildings account for over 40 per cent of GHG emissions. From an energystandpoint, many buildings operate at 50 per cent below their efficiency potentiall, and only eight percent of Canadas building stock has been retrofitted.

Over one-third of the emissions reductions available to the municipal sector can be achieved at aneutral or even positive return on investment. Canadas EcoEnergy Home Retrofit program, whichtargeted the residential sector, resulted in $1.1 billion in additional local spending supporting the localeconomy. The macroeconomic benefits of Integrated Community Energy Systems (policies that leadto more efficient building and community design, and decreased energy use, including for

transportation) include an increase in 2050 GDP by 0.4 and 1.0 per cent, respectively, compared withBusiness-As-Usual (BAU), as well as the creation of 33,000 new jobs and a decrease in structuralunemployment from 6.16 per cent in the BAU scenario to 5.92 per cent.

The federal government has centred its environmental policy on the reduction of water and airpollution, on becoming a clean energy superpower, and on reducing GHG emissions by 17 per centbelow 2005 levels by 2020. It is also committed to reducing Canadas deficit, increasing GDP, creating

jobs and supporting Canadian invention and ownership of new technologies. While the achievement ofthese goals may depend largely on the private sector, municipalities may have a role to play asenablers and partners of the private sector. Municipalities can green their own operations andincentivize sustainable choices by the residential, commercial and industrial sectors. These incentiveshave the potential to increase demand for sustainable technologies and services, allowing the greensector to increasingly contribute to federal economic objectives.

Strategies

In support of the municipal role in Canadas transition to a green economy, FCM recommends that theGovernment of Canada:

release a white paper on the role of municipalities in transitioning to a green economy;conduct quantitative research based on its white paper recommendations; andpresent recommendations to the federal government on the municipal role in Canadas transitionto a green economy.


35/139


WASTEWATER

FCM supports the primary objective of the proposed federal Wastewater System Effluent Regulation(WSER); however, municipalities will need additional funding to meet these new requirements. This isa challenge important enough and large enough to require the three orders of government towork together.

Municipal Wastewater EffluentFor over a century, Canadian municipalities have provided a service critical to the protection of publichealth and the environment the collection and treatment of wastewater. Canadians, the second-largest consumers of potable water in the world, generate over six trill ion litres of wastewater per year.This water contains a range of pathogens as well as organic and chemical loading that, in the past,was the driver of major outbreaks of cholera and other waterborne diseases. Today, the efforts ofwater and wastewater system operators have made the occurrence of waterborne illness virtuallyunknown in this country.

In Canada, the level of treatment of wastewater varies across the country. In some provinces, all butone per cent of the population is served by a secondary-level treatment facility; in others, over 60 percent is served by systems that treat at less than a secondary level. Changing this situation will requirethe partnership of all orders of government.

WastewaterIn February 2009, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) released theCanada-Wide Strategy for the Management of Municipal Wastewater Effluent. The primary objectiveof the Canada-wide approach is to establish a minimum performance standard for the treatment ofmunicipal wastewater in Canada and for the management of collection system overflows. Thetreatment standard would be the equivalent of secondary treatment for all systems in the country, tobe achieved over a maximum 30-year risk time frame. This strategy was endorsed by all provincesand territories except for Newfoundland and Labrador, Nunavut and Quebec. It is of note that due toits unique conditions, the Canada-Wide Strategy does not apply to the Far North; a window of up tofive years has been provided to undertake additional research to establish an approach suitable fornorthern conditions.

A year later, in March 2010, Environment Canada gazetted the federal Wastewater System EffluentRegulation (WSER) under the authority of the Fisheries Act. The intent of the regulation was totranslate the Canada-Wide Strategy into a legal framework so that municipalities and other wastewatersystem operators would have a clear direction in terms of future performance. In its initial form, theregulation differed in significant ways from the Canada-Wide Strategy, particularly with respect to thetreatment of combined sewer overflows. This divergence and others carried serious cost implicationsthat were not accounted for in the Regulatory Impact Assessment Statement. These concerns areexpected to be addressed in the second version of the regulations following a six-month dialoguebetween FCM and Environment Canada.

FCM agrees with the fundamental objectives of the WSER and the Canada-Wide Strategy. Therequirement for municipal facilities to achieve the equivalent of secondary treatment of wastewatereffluent is ambitious, but necessary if we are to protect human health and the environment frompotentially harmful substances. However, FCM does not agree that current funding programs aresufficient to address both existing and new requirements.

Strategies

FCM recommends that the Government of Canada:develop a new, long-term infrastructure investment strategy to replace the Building Canada Plan.The government should work with its provincial, territorial and municipal partners over the nextthree years to develop this plan;


36/139


strengthen its approach to pollution prevention by taking a clear lead in ensuring that harmfulsubstances are reduced at the source. Municipal governments must not be seen as the last line ofdefence when it comes to protecting human health and the environment from the harmful effectsof industrial and other pollutants;invest in research to assist northern communities in identifying the most cost-effective, efficientand appropriate technology for use in extreme climatic conditions;

ensure that all communities, including those in rural, remote and northern regions and thoseregions reliant on septic systems, are provided with an equitable level of protection from theharmful effects of municipal wastewater effluent;include municipal governments in all relevant consultations, and in particular the discussions thatwill lead to the establishment of requirements for the North by 2014;ensure that municipal governments have access to the necessary guidance, tools and resourcesto complete effluent characterization and environmental risk-assessment processes, and introducewater conservation programs and incentives; andinclude municipal government representatives on any national task force or advisory body workingon the implementation of new requirements.

CLEAN, SAFE AND RELIABLE DRINKING WATER

All Canadians must have access to adequate supplies of clean, safe and reliable drinking water, aswell as water for industrial, agricultural and recreational purposes. FCM supports a multi-barrierapproach to drinking water, comprising an integrated system of procedures, processes and tools that,collectively, will prevent or reduce the contamination of drinking water from source to tap and back tosource, in order to reduce risks to public health and the environment.

Municipal governments and other managers of drinking-water systems are responsible for providingclean, safe and reliable drinking water. While municipal governments ensure that water complies withprovincial and territorial regulations and applicable federal legislation, some municipal governments gobeyond this minimum by moving toward a more comprehensive approach to water-quality management.

However, many municipalities are concerned about contaminated sources of drinking water and

degraded recreational water. A report appearing in the Canadian Medical Association Journalrevealed that over 1,700 neighbourhoods and communities in Canada were under boil-wateradvisories in the spring of 2008. While some municipal governments have improved the quality ofsource water by adopting watershed management and planning approaches, municipalities acrossCanada still face challenges, usually linked to the outdated municipal fiscal system, in themanagement, maintenance and capacity of their drinking-water systems.

The first step requires the all orders of government to collectively update and enhance the statementon a federal water policy, as well as develop programs and implement the National Water Strategy.Monitoring and measurement programs must also be improved to ensure that all Canadians haveaccess to accurate, relevant and meaningful information. This includes programs for rural, remote andnorthern regions, where well-water testing is infrequent and usually voluntary, leaving nearly a quarterof Canadians without information about the quality of their drinking water.

Strategies

In support of this approach to achieve clean, safe and reliable drinking water in Canadianmunicipalities, FCM recommends that the Government of Canada:

consult with municipal governments in the development and implementation of Canadas NationalWater Strategy;take the lead in strengthening and harmonizing water-quality objectives and requirements acrossall Canadian jurisdictions;work with municipalities to review, update and legislate the statement for a federal water policy;


37/139


provide municipal governments access to the necessary human, technical and financial resourcesto respond to regulatory and other requirements related to drinking-water quality and water supply;andwork with provinces and territories to strengthen well-water testing and sampling requirements sothat private well users know whether their water is safe to drink.

WATERSHED PROTECTION

Municipal governments must be seen as partners in managing Canadas watersheds, including indeveloping national strategies for water conservation and water-use efficiency, as well as indetermining the goals and priorities of international water-use and water-quality agreements.

Canadians think our freshwater is abundant, but between 1994 and 1999 about 26 per cent ofCanadian municipalities with water distribution systems experienced a water shortage. The reasonsvaried, but one of the key factors was that Canadians consume more water per person than any othercountry, with the exception of the United States. In addition, municipalities, which account for 11 percent of Canadas water withdrawals, compete with other users, including thermal power (whichaccounts for 60 per cent of Canadas water use), industry, mining, manufacturing and agriculture.Water availability is also affected by changing weather and climatic conditions, including more frequent

and severe droughts and floods. Pollution of both surface water and groundwater has alsocompromised water availability for municipalities.

To address concerns about water availability, many municipalities have introduced water conservationinitiatives and water-efficiency measures, such as metering, flow control devices, water recyclingsystems, changes in pricing, incentives and rate structures, regulations, and water-use restrictions.Further improvements can be achieved by replacing sub-performing water infrastructure, which canlose close to 30 per cent of water. All communities can adopt these measures, but rural, remote andnorthern communities must also contend with other unique challenges, especially if they rely onprivate wells and septic systems. Increasing pressures from multiple users are stressing aquifers andin some cases are compromising both supply and quality.

Strategies

To ensure that all orders of government work together to establish a national strategy for waterconservation and water-use efficiency, FCM recommends the Government of Canada:

develop goals to reduce per capita water consumption;amend the National Building Code to mandate water-conserving equipment for domestic andindustrial use;support moving toward universal metering, when feasible and appropriate;work with all orders of government to develop a monitoring strategy and inventory of Canadaswater resources, including an assessment of municipal water supply and availability; andwork with all orders of government to assess the condition of municipal water infrastructure, and todetermine and respond to future funding needs.

BULK WATER EXPORTS, DIVERSIONS AND INTER-BASIN TRANSFERS

Municipal governments must be seen as partners in determining the goals and priorities ofinternational water-use and water-quality agreements. Municipal governments must also be formallyengaged in decision-making processes related to water exports, diversions and inter-basin transfers,and be fully informed of the potential environmental, economic and social impacts of these activities ontheir communities.

Water diversions and inter-basin transfers can play an important role in Canadas economicdevelopment and prosperity. By making the most of our water resources, we can generate


38/139


hydroelectricity, irrigate agricultural crops and support industrial processes. However, the public isstarting to oppose large-scale diversions and transfers, which can diminish water availability andquality, introduce invasive species, damage the environment and force communities to relocate.

The effects of climate change are expected to place an even greater pressure on what is already anover-stressed resource. Changing precipitation patterns will exacerbate the negative effects ofdiversions and transfers on water availability and quality. We must also be prepared to respond togrowing requests for water exports, particularly from such areas as the water-starved AmericanSouthwest. However, existing international trade regimes make it difficult to deny access to Canadianwater, making our water supply vulnerable to international interests.

To overcome the challenges associated with international trade regimes, Canada must argue thatallowing bulk water exports will harm human health and the environment. Restricting exports willrequire leadership from the federal government, as well as a clear, effective legislative framework andits enforcement.

Strategies

FCM recommends the Government of Canada:establish a clear legislative framework for bulk water exports, inter-basin transfers and water

diversion, which would:o protect human health and the environment by limiting the export of Canadian water;o restrict diversions and inter-basin transfers both within Canada and between Canadian and

international jurisdictions; ando affirm the role of the federal government in protecting and securing Canadas water resources.

CLIMATE CHANGE

The Government of Canada must recognize municipal governments as partners in addressing climatechange mitigation and adaptation. Municipalities have proven, cost-effective projects ready to jumpstart Canadas climate change strategy, increase competitiveness and build moreresilient communities.

In February 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a report thatstated that the warming of the Earth was unequivocal and was due to anthropogenic emissions ofgreenhouse gases. It further stated that carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute towarming for the next millennium and that almost all natural systems were already being impacted.

Overall, Canadians contribute only two per cent to global emissions; however, we are the second-largest per capita emitters, after the United States. Many communities have developed and arealready implementing climate change plans that look to mitigate carbon emissions while adapting theirinfrastructure and services to new weather patterns. The future health, competitiveness andsustainability of Canadian communities, especially in the North, require the vision and commitment ofall orders of government. The challenges of climate change are too complex to be managed by anysingle order of government alone. Ensuring that Canadas communities are resilient will require anational vision that encompasses long-term commitment, partnerships and funding.

Climate Change MitigationMunicipalities have direct or indirect influence on over 44 per cent of Canadas GHG emissions,accounting for up to between 20 and 55 megatonnes of emission reductions, including wastemanagement, transportation, and design of commercial and residential buildings.

Over one-quarter of these emission reductions can provide a neutral or even positive return oninvestment (less than $0/tonne reduced). More than two-thirds of emission reductions can be achievedat a cost of less than $25/tonne reduced less than the average cost of regulating industry or


39/139


developing renewable energy. All of the emission, reductions are projected to cost less than $75/tonnereduced, which is significantly less than the projected cost of competing options such as carboncapture and storage.

During the past decade, municipalities have undertaken thousands of projects to reduce GHGemissions, from turning landfill gas into electricity to putting high-efficiency buses on the road. Manyprojects pay for themselves and save taxpayers money by improving energy efficiency. Theseprojects build more livable communities, boost our quality of life and promote economiccompetitiveness.

FCM endorses the World Mayors and Municipal Leaders Declaration on Climate Change committingmunicipal governments, each according to their individual circumstances and abilities, to reduce GHGemissions by 30 per cent from 1990 levels by 2020 and by 80 per cent by 2050. FCM also supports inprinciple the 2010 Global Cities Covenant on Climate or Mexico City Pact, which contains10 commitments relating to action on climate change mitigation and adaptation. The approach putforward in the Mexico City Pact is consistent with the approach currently promoted by FCM throughthe Partners for Climate Protection Program, whereby municipalities assess their GHG footprint,develop a local action plan, implement the plan and report on their results according to their individualcircumstances and abilities.

Strategies

To meet the challenge of climate change, FCM recommends that the Government of Canada:recognize that municipal contributions are an essential element to achieving long-term and cost-effective emission reductions;partner with all orders of government to address climate change effectively and efficiently duringthese difficult economic times;provide municipal governments with access to long-term, stable and predictable funding to allowfor investment in innovative, environmentally sound init iatives and programs; anddevelop, in partnership with municipalities, protocols for successful municipal participation in anyfuture emissions-trading scheme, if or when one is developed.

Climate Change Adaptation

Among the anticipated impacts of climate change are more severe and more frequent extremeweather events; more severe floods, drought and pest infestations; changes in migration patterns formigratory species; and shifting freeze-thaw cycles. These impacts will be particularly severe in theNorth, where changes in ice thickness, permafrost coverage and vegetation have alreadybeen observed.

Climate change endangers such municipal assets as roads and bridges, transportation systems, waterand wastewater systems, and coastal infrastructure. In the North, climate change will also affect theice roads system, seriously limiting the transportation of goods and delaying economic development.

Municipal governments can minimize these risks by investing in emergency preparedness andresponse systems, by incorporating loss prevention and adaptation into long-term sustainability plans,and by investing in resilient infrastructure. Municipalities can adapt to climate change by planning for it.

Building codes should require construction techniques that make structures more resistant to naturalhazards. Higher tolerances should be included in the design criteria for infrastructure. Sanitary andstorm sewers, for example, should be built to account for more intense flooding, while greaterpermeability and storm-water retention capacity should be integrated into city design.

Some municipalities, including participants in FCMs Partners for Climate Protection Program, arealready adapting to climate change and are demonstrating how climate change initiatives cancontribute to economic, social, cultural and environmental benefits. However, much more needs to bedone to ensure that Canadas municipal governments are able to protect the health and well-being oftheir citizens.


40/139


Strategies

To meet the challenge of climate change, FCM recommends that the Government of Canada:ensure that federal infrastructure funds support and encourage the adaptation of municipalinfrastructure. This includes strengthening existing and new infrastructure to withstand presentand future climate conditions and hazards, continuing to strengthen the science related to climate

change impacts;work with engineering professionals and the insurance industry to determine whether and howengineering standards should be adjusted to reflect future weather and climate conditions;develop risk assessment protocols that will help decision-makers assess vulnerability toclimate change;ensure that local authorities have fully resourced emergency preparedness and response systemsin place to respond to severe weather events; andsupport communities in Canadas North in mapping climate change-related infrastructurevulnerabilities, including through the extension of the Indian and Northern Affairs Canada-fundedState of Knowledge Regarding Permafrost Degradation and Community Infrastructure in theNorthwest Territories.

AIR QUALITY

Communities across Canada need better tools to assess and counter the impacts of poor air quality,which can have direct impacts on human health and the environment.

There have been increasing concerns about the impact of air pollution on communities. Some airpollutants are GHGs, but many do not contribute to Canadas carbon emissions and are instead aconcern for their harmful impacts on human health and the environment. Although air pollution isregional in nature, air-quality issues can also extend across provincial and national borders andrequire intergovernmental cooperation.

The 2006 Clean Air Actproposes to put key air pollutants onto the Canadian Environmental ProtectionAct (CEPA) toxic list in order for the federal government to regulate. An effective Clean Air Act willprotect human health and the environment from the harmful effects of air pollution, improve energy

efficiency in all sectors, and promote the use of renewable energy sources.

Strategies

To ensure the protection of our air quality, FCM recommends the Government of Canada:amend the preamble of CEPA to formally recognize the importance of intergovernmentalcoordination, including the role of municipal government. Given the important role of municipalitiesin reducing GHG emissions and improving air quality, FCM also recommends that a municipalgovernment representative participate in the CEPA National Advisory Committee;reduce air pollutants and GHGs by enhancing vehicle fuel efficiency, by introducing vehicleemission standards for both light-duty vehicles and freight transportation, and by reducing vehicleuse through improved public transit systems and sustainable urban-planning practices. The MotorVehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act, for example, should introduce fuel-efficiency standards

equivalent to those adopted in leading jurisdictions such as California. These standards shouldcome into effect as soon as the Memorandum of Understanding with the auto sector expires;develop, with municipal governments, initiatives to assist municipalities in reducing vehicle usethrough improved public/active transportation and sustainable urban-planning practices;ensure that new regulations must also address transboundary air pollution by ensuring thatbilateral agreements between Canada and the United States are maintained andstrengthened; anddevelop and provide to all citizens and decision-makers current information on local air-quality conditions.


41/139


INTEGRATED COMMUNITY ENERGY SYSTEMS

Municipalities support integrated community energy systems and promote increased renewableenergy, co-generation and energy efficiency as an effective means to reduce our GHG emissions,improve our air quality and reduce the financial load of energy costs to municipalities and Canadians.

Municipal governments help heat homes, generate electricity, transport the public and determine land

use. In some regions of Canada, projected levels of demand will exceed generation capacity within thenext 10 to 15 years. To address this issue, Canadas municipalities and, indeed, Canada as anation must identify new ways of meeting demand and must implement programs and policies thatwill promote renewable energy, conserve energy and improve efficiency across all sectors. FCM issupportive of Integrated Community Energy Systems (ICES), which look at the cross-cuttingopportunities and synergies available at the community level by integrating physical components frommultiple sectors, including energy supply and distribution; transportation; housing and buildings;industry; water, waste management and other local community services; and land use andcommunity form.

Research conducted by Quality Urban Energy Systems of Tomorrow (QUEST) demonstrated thatICES policies have the potential to yield a 13 to 34 Mt reduction in GHG emissions. Themacroeconomic benefits of these policies include an increase in 2050 GDP by 0.4 and 1.0 per cent,

respectively, compared with BAU, as well as the creation of 33,000 new jobs and a decrease instructural unemployment from 6.16 per cent in the BAU scenario to 5.92 per cent (QUEST 2010).These findings demonstrate that ICES policies not only have environmental benefit, but contribute toCanadas prosperity.

Shifting toward more-integrated and sustainable energy sources and uses, while promoting energyefficiency, will be critical to improving air quality, reducing GHG emissions and lowering environmentalimpacts. In addition, expanded renewable resources in rural and remote communities will provideopportunities for significant economic, social and environmental benefits for these communities.Moreover, improved energy efficiency and use will provide many consumers and municipalities thefinancial break needed during these difficult economic times.

Strategies

To ensure that all orders of government work together to promote energy efficiency and renewableenergy production and adoption, FCM recommends that the Government of Canada:

support municipal efforts to promote integrated community energy systems that will improveefficiencies, increase renewable energy, reduce waste and decrease emissions of pollution.Reducing energy use from municipal operations can produce net savings, but municipalities donot always have the resources to make up-front investments;continue to implement and expand renewable power production incentives, so that municipalservices can be delivered with safe, reliable and clean sources of energy;work with all orders of government to develop a national energy strategy, supported byappropriate economic instruments and other policy tools, to ensure that municipalities andstakeholders have access to cost-effective and reliable sources and technologies to promoteintegrated community energy systems, including renewable energy and energy efficiency;

implement renewable energy portfolio standards that will apply across Canada. These standardsshould be supported through direct federal investments and other innovative programs that willhelp to expand clean energy generation and expedite commercialization; andmaximize economic development opportunities in renewable energy and fuel for ruralmunicipalities, as well as help producers that want to own new, environmentally soundbiofuel facilities.


42/139


WASTE

Canadian waste issues must be dealt with in Canada. The Government of Canada, in partnership withprovincial, territorial and municipal governments, must establish a comprehensive national strategy formunicipal solid waste, with an emphasis on extended producer responsibility and waste reduction.Canada must, at minimum, divert one half of its waste from disposal.

In Canada, municipal governments collect waste, manage current and closed landfills, treat anddispose of toxic substances, and run recycling programs. This work is expensive. While per capitawaste production has declined in some regions, the overall volume of solid waste destined formunicipal landfills continues to climb, often exceeding current and projected landfill capacities.

Even so, there is no national policy framework for municipal solid waste. Instead, there is a patchworkof policies and regulations across jurisdictions, product types and waste streams. Waste managementstrategies must support Canadas climate change objectives and broader sustainability goals.Therefore, FCM encourages the Government of Canada to work with provinces, territories andindustry on a comprehensive national waste management policy.

The national strategy would ensure that municipalities have access to long-term, stable andpredictable funding that will allow them to invest in innovative waste management facilities and waste

diversion programs. Municipal programs would reduce waste management costs, and market-basedinstruments would establish a level playing field for industry while encouraging andrewarding innovation.

A national strategy would also take a new approach to packaging. It would introduce standards tomake products more

Documents

FCM Policy Development Guide