"Make It 5 Levels," Inside BOWDA's All Candidate Forum

Canmore’s council and mayoral hopefuls gathered for what may have been the campaign’s most technically charged debate: the Bow Valley Builders and Developers Association (BOWDA) all-candidates forum.

For two hours, candidates tackled the issues that shape daily life in the valley: affordability, growth, red tape, and whether the town’s policies are keeping pace with the realities of a resort-driven economy.

The discussion revealed not only policy differences, but also contrasting philosophies on how to keep Canmore livable without losing what makes it unique.

On Housing

It did not take long for housing to dominate the discussion. Nearly every candidate circled back to it, calling affordability the single greatest pressure on the town’s livability.

Mayor Sean Krausert opened by grounding the problem in hard numbers. “By provincial numbers, our housing is 179 percent the baseline,” he said. “Our median assessed value for condos last year was $900,000; for single-family homes, $1.4 million. So we need to build more non-market housing. That’s the only thing that’s proven to remain accessible past the first buyer or two, and that’s what this council has been working on and I will continue to work on.”

Around the table, no one disagreed that the cost of living had reached a breaking point. Councillor Jeff Hilstad put it in personal terms, pointing out that the crisis stretches far beyond real estate listings. “Affordability is definitely the number one [issue], because again you look at housing, you look at rents, you look at transportation, go to the grocery store, things cost more,” he said. “If you can’t afford to live here, you won’t. You’ll move somewhere else… We need to keep doing what we’re doing and keep figuring out ways to tackle affordability.”

For Councillor Karen Marra, who chairs Bow Valley Regional Housing, the issue was not just about home ownership. It was about the workers and community members that keep Canmore running. “I see the studies and I see the needs from seniors down to people who have disabilities,” she said. “And our employees, because of tourism pressures and growth pressures, who’s going to serve our coffee? How do we keep those people in our community caring about our community?”

On Growth

From there, the conversation turned naturally toward growth, the question that underlies almost everything else. Councillor Wade Graham framed affordability as inseparable from population pressure. “Affordability certainly is the key,” he said, “but I’m going to come at it from a growth perspective. The province has a mandate to double tourism in the next decade. If we think the roads are bad now, wait until twice as many people show up here. If we think the affordability of housing is hard right now, wait until twice as many people show up here….We have to take a long-term view about growth and growth management. Doing it smartly, collaboratively, working with folks like yourselves, working with the province.”

As if to drive that point home, Laura Finlay described the situation in simpler, more tangible terms. “The number one [problem] right now are roads,” she said. “I live in Canmore…the traffic is very tight. I would have to say a parkade is our only solution. I said initially at another forum that I think it should be out of town, but then I got to thinking why don’t we put a car park right on top of Elevation Place, Make it five levels high.”

For many residents, congestion is not just a nuisance. It is a daily reminder that the town’s infrastructure was never designed for this scale of growth.

On Provincial and Federal Responsibilities

That sense of strain also colored a recurring topic: Canmore’s relationship with higher levels of government. When moderators asked about collaboration with Banff and Ottawa, both mayoral candidates agreed the town could not solve its housing and workforce issues alone.

Ed Russell was blunt about what he sees as the imbalance. “If we’ve got that many people commuting to Banff, possibly we bring Banff to the plate with us because it’s their work we’re picking up the slack for, their lack of housing bringing their workers here,” he said. “We’ve got an MP here that we can use. We can approach him and as a team project, that’s what we would have to tackle because it’s there. Banff can assist us with this and collectively do the right thing.”

Krausert, seeking re-election, agreed that federal accountability had been missing for years. “The problem with growth in Banff National Park is that they haven’t given it a lot of consideration,” he said. “In one report I saw, the plan for accommodating housing simply said it would come into either Banff - or, more likely, into Canmore.”

On Timelines and Approvals

The conversation then shifted from policy to process. For many in the room, the question was not whether Canmore should grow, but how predictable the town’s development system could be. BOWDA’s moderator cited ongoing frustration about timelines, red tape, and legal risk. Councillor Tanya Foubert was ready with a response. “We could in the next term create a KPI around whether or not we are meeting the threshold for development-permit timeline processing under the MGA,” she said, referring to the provincial Municipal Government Act that sets rules for how quickly municipalities must handle applications. “That is a direct way that we can measure whether or not we are meeting these goals. Decision-making that complies to provincial legislation minimizes the risk for taxpayer-funded litigation.”

Krausert agreed that some of the frustration is justified and outlined steps already underway. “There’s a number of practical things that we can do,” he said. “We can remove things that are unnecessary steps… streamline by reducing the questions on second rounds of iterations and also in our land-use-bylaw rewrite. We need to learn from the data we’re now collecting in our application system… and I very much support creating a service commitment that includes time frames for assigning a file.”

Russell’s critique was more personal. “Things seem to be awfully slow and consistently poor. I’ll speak from a personal example: they had to remove my mobile home from Spring Creek. When we finally got through the permitting paperwork and process… 37 days to have a permit removed to simply hook on and pull it out.”

On Livability Tax

If housing and process dominated the early part of the discussion, the sharpest exchange came when the topic turned to the town’s proposed vacancy or “livability” tax, a levy on second-home owners designed to raise funds for affordable housing.

Finlay said she initially supported the idea until she considered whom it might hurt. “I almost thought it was a good idea until I really thought about the people it was actually affecting,” she said. “I didn’t think about the family from Edmonton who’s owned it for 25 years… So no, I don’t think it’s a good idea. I think the government is actually going to fix the situation for us.”

Rob Seeley described the policy as one that “is divisive and it’s ruining our sense of community.” He said, “It’s created conflict and left the town fighting costly legal battles. Instead, I propose reworking the livability tax into a fairer, more reasonable tool that’s part of a longer-term housing solution… Pursue resort-municipality status so visitors contribute their fair share.”

That view was challenged by Javan Mukhtarov, who argued the tax remains necessary until the province provides an alternative. “The vacancy tax is not a perfect tool we have, but that’s the only tool we have right now to address the very crisis that we have in our town,” he said. “I’ve been door-knocking for the last two weeks and every third or fourth door - it’s empty. There’s no one living there. Until the province provides us with a tool that we can fight against this problem, this is the only solution I see going forward.”

On Communication

After nearly two hours of debate, the conversation turned to how council works together, and how it communicates with the public.

Foubert spoke to that theme, arguing that process alone cannot fix a culture of reaction. “We have complex problems and a lot of people who want simple solutions,” she said. “We have communication that’s reactionary instead of collaborative. When we’re dealing with big complex things, we don’t have to rush. We should take our time and do it well. And that’s where communication, public participation, collaboration, engagement, and knowledge around legislation in Alberta that is pertinent for the decisions we make are really important.”

If the BOWDA forum offered any clarity, it was that every candidate on stage understands the stakes. Whether they agreed on the tools or not, each spoke from the same starting point: Canmore’s future depends on finding a way to grow without breaking what it already is.

What Do You Think?

Put your feedback or comments below!