Where Canmore’s Candidates Stand on the Environment

At a two-hour all-candidates forum on the environment, candidates for Canmore’s next town council outlined their visions for wildfire management, growth, wildlife coexistence, and climate action, revealing both shared priorities and points of divergence ahead of the municipal election. The forum, hosted by the Biosphere Institute of the Bow Valley on October 2 at the Canmore Seniors’ Association, brought together candidates for mayor and council to respond to pre submitted and audience questions focused on environmental issues.

Mayoral Candidates

Sean Krausert

As the incumbent mayor, Sean Krausert entered the forum with a clear focus on defending his record and positioning himself as a steady hand on environmental issues. In his opening remarks, he highlighted a series of actions taken during his term to address climate change, wildfire risk, and wildlife coexistence. He cited the rebooting of the Human Wildlife Coexistence Roundtable, the adoption of the Climate Emergency Action Plan, the construction of the Community Fire Guard, and incentives aimed at shifting residents toward cleaner transportation and energy. He described how the fire guard work, designed to reduce wildfire risk, has “the side benefit of increasing wildlife habitat,” framing it as both a safety measure and a habitat improvement project.

Krausert also pointed to tougher rules on wildlife attractants, mentioning measures related to fruit trees, unsecured garbage, and domestic animals. He emphasized the importance of making these changes as part of a broader strategy to reduce human–wildlife conflicts. Alongside these rules, he described programs incentivizing clean energy adoption, including e-bike rebates and solar incentives, as part of Canmore’s broader climate response. “I envision Canmore as a thriving, authentic, and environmentally responsible mountain community for generations to come,” he said, summing up his vision as one of continuity and responsible stewardship.

Throughout the forum, Krausert positioned himself as a candidate committed to building on established plans and programs rather than charting a dramatically different course. When issues such as wildfire mitigation and wildlife coexistence came up, his responses consistently referenced policies already in motion, reflecting his belief that Canmore has laid strong groundwork and should continue to refine and expand on it rather than starting from scratch.

Ed Russell

Ed Russell offered a contrasting approach, focusing less on listing past accomplishments and more on calling for a shift in direction. “It’s time to reshape Canmore’s future properly,” he said during his opening remarks, framing his candidacy as an opportunity to rethink how the town approaches its environmental and planning challenges. His language leaned toward unifying and rallying the community rather than offering a detailed policy platform in his initial statement.

Later in the evening, Russell did share a concrete idea: the creation of a conservation fund financed through a property tax levy. He described a system where residents would contribute a modest annual amount, similar to programs in other municipalities, to generate funding for the purchase and protection of environmentally sensitive lands. This proposal aligned with the broader theme of the night — balancing growth pressures with habitat protection — and positioned Russell as someone interested in structural tools that secure land for conservation over the long term.

Russell did not outline extensive new policy initiatives or critique specific existing programs during the forum. His focus was more on values and vision, particularly around the idea of collective responsibility and long-term thinking. By positioning himself as the candidate for a “reset,” he implicitly suggested that Canmore’s current path, while containing positive elements, may not be sufficient to meet future challenges. His conservation fund proposal was one of the clearer distinctions he offered, signaling a desire to bring new financial mechanisms into the town’s environmental strategy.

Councillor Candidates

Tanya Foubert

Tanya Foubert drew on her background in both journalism and municipal service to frame herself as a candidate deeply engaged with provincial climate and environmental networks, while also grounded in local realities. In her opening remarks, she spoke about her work on the Alberta Municipalities Environment and Sustainability Committee and the Alberta Climate Leaders Caucus, as well as her four years on the Bow Valley Regional Transit Commission. She described Canmore’s environmental challenges as “wicked problems” that require leadership capable of navigating multiple perspectives and levels of governance.

Foubert was assigned a question about building emissions and retrofits, which she answered by emphasizing Canmore’s current strengths. She argued that Canmore already has “one of the highest standards of new development that we can expect to see from the private sector without the building codes going up in steps for them,” and highlighted the Biosphere Institute’s Building for Sustainability Symposium as an example of local leadership in high-performance building practices. Rather than calling for dramatic regulatory changes, she focused on leveraging and promoting existing strengths.

On retrofits, she described a municipal program in partnership with a Calgary organization that targets low-income households for energy retrofits, noting that these are the homes least likely to afford upgrades but often most in need. She called the program “progressive” and “innovative,” and framed it as an example of practical climate action that prioritizes equity. Foubert also mentioned her “passion for circular economy,” connecting environmental action to broader resource efficiency. She did not offer new policy proposals at the forum, instead positioning herself as a candidate with a deep understanding of existing systems and how to strengthen them.

Wade Graham

Wade Graham’s remarks were among the most detailed of the evening. He began by stating unequivocally, “climate change is real and caused by human activity,” setting a firm tone on the issue. He then gave a comprehensive rundown of environmental policies and programs he has supported or helped implement during his time on council. This included Highway 1 wildlife fencing, e-bike rebates, fruit tree removal programs, leash enforcement, the Clean Energy Improvement Program, solar incentives, EV charger programs, and the adoption of the Climate Emergency Action Plan.

Graham was assigned a question on wildfire risk and habitat, and his response reflected both his involvement in current wildfire mitigation efforts and his understanding of their ecological impacts. He pointed to the creation of major firebreaks between Canmore and Banff, saying, “If you would have told me a few years ago that we’d be logging as many hectares as we currently are, I would have told you you’re crazy.” He emphasized that, while the scale of logging is surprising, the way the work has been managed has created beneficial habitat for elk, deer, bears, and wolves, restoring some of the natural landscape structure that had been altered by fire suppression over the past century.

Graham credited the provincial government for strong collaboration on wildfire mitigation, noting, “If there’s one thing that I can give the province a lot of credit for, it is the partnership for wildfire mitigation.” His stance combined practical infrastructure measures with habitat considerations, presenting wildfire work as both a public safety and environmental initiative.

Throughout the forum, Graham came across as a candidate with a clear policy record and a belief that Canmore is on the right track environmentally. He did not propose major new initiatives, but he articulated in detail the programs he supports and framed himself as someone with the experience to maintain and build on them.

Jonathan Hazzard

Jonathan Hazzard approached the forum with a focus on big-picture environmental challenges and the role of municipalities in mitigating risks that are increasingly national in scale. In his opening remarks, he highlighted Canada’s accelerating forest loss and the economic toll of wildfires, citing figures that pegged wildfire costs at $112 billion annually. He framed these issues as not only local threats but also as part of a wider national pattern that requires coordination across jurisdictions.

Hazzard was assigned a wildfire-themed question, and he used it to argue for more proactive detection and suppression measures. He proposed early detection systems to catch fires before they spread, more helicopters and water bombers, and stronger collaboration between municipalities, provinces, and the federal government. “We cannot do this by ourselves,” he said, making the case that municipal resources alone are not sufficient to deal with the increasing severity of fire seasons. His emphasis on detection and higher-level coordination differentiated him from candidates who focused more narrowly on local mitigation measures like firebreaks.

Hazzard also raised the issue of road dust particulate pollution, noting its impact on respiratory health during winter months when Canmore relies heavily on gravel for traction. He called for exploring alternatives that would reduce air quality impacts while maintaining safety on roads. On growth, Hazzard expressed caution about Canmore’s development pace, suggesting the town should be more conservative in its planning given uncertainties around future environmental and infrastructure pressures. He did not oppose specific projects outright but framed his stance as one of measured growth and risk awareness, signaling a willingness to question the status quo without proposing a full reversal.

Overall, Hazzard’s vision combined a strong sense of urgency on wildfire and air quality issues with a cautious approach to land use. He spoke less about existing municipal programs than some incumbents, but he offered concrete suggestions on wildfire detection and a clear framing of Canmore’s role within larger environmental systems.

Jeff Hilstad

Jeff Hilstad positioned himself as a lifelong local with a business background, emphasizing the need to balance environmental protection with practical economic and community considerations. His opening remarks focused on “smart, responsible growth” and decision-making that respects Canmore’s environmental setting while supporting the town’s livability and economic resilience. Unlike some candidates who came with detailed policy checklists, Hilstad’s comments were more thematic, centering on the kind of decision-making approach he would bring to council.

Hilstad’s assigned question touched on business emissions reporting and incentives. He expressed support for increasing environmental accountability from local businesses but stressed that this should be paired with practical incentives rather than punitive measures. He framed this as a partnership approach, where the municipality works collaboratively with businesses to help them adapt rather than imposing burdensome regulations without support. This stance differentiated him slightly from incumbents like Graham and Foubert, who leaned on existing frameworks, by emphasizing the importance of making environmental action economically workable for small businesses.

On growth, Hilstad expressed general support for development that is well planned and balanced, without taking strong positions on specific projects like Palliser. He focused more on the principles of responsible land use rather than outlining new regulatory measures. He did not delve deeply into wildfire or wildlife policies, instead reinforcing a vision of pragmatic, balanced governance that considers multiple interests simultaneously.

Hilstad’s environmental vision is less about introducing new initiatives and more about applying a measured, collaborative approach to existing challenges, reflecting his background as both a resident and business owner in the community.

Jeff Ma

Jeff Ma approached the forum through a lens of personal experience and analytical thinking, blending a deep respect for Canmore’s natural environment with a focus on structured decision-making. He opened by recounting a moment on Pigeon Mountain when he encountered a wolf, describing it as an encounter that “resets our place in the natural world.” This story anchored his remarks in a sense of humility toward the landscape, setting a tone that emphasized coexistence and long-term stewardship.

Ma’s background on several boards and committees, including the Biosphere Institute, Community Housing, and the Waste Management Commission, informed his approach. He spoke about the importance of integrating cumulative environmental impacts into municipal decision-making, arguing that development decisions should account for their collective effect on ecosystems, infrastructure, and the community over time. He framed this as a gap in current planning processes, suggesting that cumulative impact assessments should be built directly into the land use bylaw so that environmental considerations are embedded structurally, not treated as afterthoughts.

While Ma didn’t present a list of new policies, his stance suggested a shift in how decisions are made rather than simply adding new programs. His emphasis on cumulative impact analysis aligned with broader concerns raised during the forum about wildlife corridors and development pressure, but he articulated it in a way that reflected his technical and governance experience. His remarks positioned him as someone who wants to strengthen the analytical underpinnings of environmental governance, making decisions more rigorous and holistic.

Karen Marra

Karen Marra leaned on her long experience in waste management and environmental programs to frame herself as a candidate focused on practical incentives and regional collaboration. She compared environmental responsibility to “keeping a house clean,” a metaphor that reflected her pragmatic approach. She highlighted her work on the Bow Valley Waste Management Commission and the Southern Alberta Waste to Energy Association, emphasizing initiatives like the town’s organics program and steps toward near net-zero waste facilities.

Marra’s focus during the forum was on promoting and scaling existing incentive programs rather than proposing new regulations. She pointed to solar rebates, e-bike incentives, and retrofit programs as areas where the town has already laid groundwork, but where she believes awareness and uptake can be improved. Her position suggested that better communication and program delivery, rather than wholesale policy innovation, could yield significant gains.

She did not stake out sharply contrasting positions on wildfire, growth, or wildlife management compared to other incumbents, instead aligning herself with the current trajectory while emphasizing her technical expertise in waste and energy. Her approach reflected a belief that incremental, incentive-based improvements can drive meaningful environmental outcomes if properly implemented.

Jennifer Marran

Jennifer Marran, a first-time candidate, approached the forum with an emphasis on values-driven decision-making. Her remarks were less focused on listing programs or policies and more on articulating the lens through which she believes council should approach environmental issues. She spoke about applying an “environmental lens” to every council decision, arguing that environmental considerations should not be isolated to specific departments or initiatives but should shape the way the municipality approaches all aspects of governance.

Marran described her deep personal connection to Canmore’s natural landscape, explaining how her life in the Bow Valley has shaped her commitment to preserving the environment. She emphasized habitat preservation and the importance of ensuring that development is compatible with wildlife movement and ecosystem health. On wildfire, she expressed support for FireSmart principles and preparedness work, aligning with the general consensus among candidates that wildfire is both a safety and ecological priority.

While Marran did not propose specific new policies, her answers reflected clear alignment with the town’s existing environmental direction, combined with a commitment to embed environmental thinking more deeply into everyday decision-making. Her stance suggested that, if elected, she would act as a consistent voice for environmental priorities at the council table, ensuring they are not sidelined in broader discussions of growth, housing, or infrastructure.

Javan Mukhtarov

Javan Mukhtarov distinguished himself as a learner and educator, acknowledging where his knowledge is still growing while emphasizing the role of community education in addressing environmental issues. In his opening remarks, he quoted Jane Goodall, saying, “What you do makes a difference, and you have to decide what kind of difference you want to make.” This framed his approach as one focused on individual responsibility and collective cultural change rather than regulatory mechanisms alone.

When asked about the Climate Emergency Action Plan, Mukhtarov was candid: “I must admit I have not been in council before. I don’t know a lot about the background of the climate emergency action plan.” Rather than offering policy prescriptions, he positioned himself as someone willing to learn quickly and work collaboratively with the community to understand and act on these plans.

Mukhtarov’s key emphasis was on education and awareness. He argued that one of the most effective ways to drive change is to help residents and businesses understand why environmental policies matter and how they can participate. This applied across issues like building emissions, wildlife coexistence, and climate action. He did not take positions for or against specific projects like Palliser, nor did he outline regulatory changes, but he articulated a vision in which the town builds shared understanding as a foundation for environmental progress.

Rob Murray

Rob Murray approached the forum with a practical, sustainability-focused vision informed by both his personal lifestyle and his governance experience on the Canmore Community Housing board. His opening remarks emphasized the importance of integrating sustainability principles into every municipal decision, drawing parallels between his personal habits and what he sees as needed at the community level.

A central example in his comments was the Palliser lands project, which he described as “a model community of both affordability and sustainability” built to near-net-zero standards. Murray used Palliser to illustrate how environmental and housing goals can intersect, framing it as proof that Canmore can build responsibly without sacrificing ecological commitments. “What I want to do is take that mindset from micro to macro,” he said, explaining that he wants to apply the same thinking behind individual sustainable projects to broader policy decisions.

Murray did not use his time to propose new environmental programs but clearly supported the current trajectory on climate and land use, with an emphasis on scaling up sustainable building practices and applying them consistently. He aligned with existing initiatives on wildlife coexistence, wildfire preparedness, and climate action, and framed his candidacy as an opportunity to bring a systems-level sustainability mindset to the council table. His responses suggested that he views council’s role as ensuring that environmental principles are applied rigorously and coherently across departments, rather than introducing entirely new frameworks.

Rob Seeley

Rob Seeley focused less on specific policy levers and more on the town’s communication and engagement strategy. He argued that one of the biggest gaps in Canmore’s environmental work is how the municipality communicates with residents about policies, programs, and priorities. His remarks suggested that he sees a disconnect between the town’s environmental ambitions and residents’ understanding of or engagement with them.

Seeley did not take strong positions for or against major projects like Palliser, nor did he lay out new environmental policies. Instead, he emphasized the need for more consistent, clear, and accessible communication, both to build community buy-in and to ensure that programs reach their intended audiences. His comments touched on themes that overlapped with other candidates, such as incentives and behavior change, but he framed these issues primarily through the lens of information flow rather than governance structure or funding.

Seeley implied that better storytelling and public engagement could help strengthen the impact of existing environmental work without necessarily introducing new regulations or financial mechanisms.

James (Strickly) Strickert

James “Strickly” Strickert stood out at the forum for presenting some of the most distinct policy differences from the majority of candidates, particularly on growth and land use. His stance centered on opposing the Palliser lands rezoning for housing development, which has been positioned by the town as a future mixed-use, sustainable community. “I might be one of the few people here that is actually against that Palliser rezoning for low-income housing,” he said during his response. He argued that the site is “the sunniest spot in all of Canmore and the largest piece of land we have left,” and proposed building a large sports complex with solar panels there instead.

Strickert’s argument was tied to a broader vision of “building up, not out.” He expressed skepticism about continued outward expansion and suggested that the town should focus on increasing density through taller apartment buildings in existing developed areas rather than opening up more land for housing. This placed him in clear contrast with candidates like Rob Murray and Sean Krausert, who defended Palliser as a model sustainable development, and even with those who approached growth more cautiously, like Jonathan Hazzard.

On wildfire, Strickert advocated for controlled burns during winter months as a mitigation strategy. While most candidates discussed wildfire primarily through the lens of firebreaks, detection, or provincial partnerships, Strickert focused on using prescribed burns to manage fuel loads more proactively. He also raised transportation concerns, particularly around the railway crossing, suggesting a topographical solution that would reduce traffic and safety issues. This tied indirectly to his land use vision, as he positioned infrastructure improvements as a prerequisite for future development.

Strickert’s positions reflected a desire to rethink several core assumptions underlying Canmore’s current environmental and land use strategy. Rather than expanding on existing plans, he proposed alternative uses for major land parcels, different wildfire tactics, and infrastructure interventions. While some of his proposals were less detailed in terms of implementation, they were notable for charting a divergent course from the mainstream of the discussion.