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.

Sean Krausert

Incumbent mayor Sean Krausert focused on the environmental work completed during his current term. In his opening statement, he listed several achievements: the reboot of the Human–Wildlife Coexistence Roundtable, the adoption of the Climate Emergency Action Plan, incentives for clean energy and e-bikes, a fruit-tree removal program, and tougher rules on wildlife attractants and domestic animals. He highlighted the construction of the community fire guard, noting it has “the side benefit of increasing wildlife habitat,” framing it as both a wildfire mitigation and ecological initiative.

During the Q&A, Krausert voiced support for creating a conservation land fund (a land purchase program to protect natural areas) through a modest property tax levy ($25-$50), citing examples from other municipalities. He described how this idea had previously been discussed during his earlier time on council, explaining that a community survey followed by council deliberation could make it a reality. He also clarified that tourism revenues cannot be used for this purpose without provincial approval, making the levy the most practical option.

Ed Russell

Mayoral challenger Ed Russell positioned himself as the candidate for a reset. “It’s time to reshape Canmore’s future properly,” he said in his opening statement, emphasizing unity and long-term thinking over specific policy details.

During the Q&A, Russell was asked about the regional transit system. He responded, “We’re doing alright so far,” expressing general satisfaction with the current state of transit. He praised recent improvements and indicated that the system is functioning well, without proposing significant changes.

Russell did not lay out concrete environmental programs during the forum, instead framing his vision in broader terms about community direction and the need to rethink how the town approaches its challenges.

Tanya Foubert

Tanya Foubert framed her candidacy around experience and collaboration. In her opening statement, she highlighted her work on the Alberta Municipalities Environment and Sustainability Committee, the Alberta Climate Leaders Caucus, and the Bow Valley Regional Transit Commission. She spoke about Canmore’s environmental challenges as “wicked problems” that require strong leadership and cooperation across different levels of government and community groups.

When asked about building standards and energy retrofits, Foubert emphasized Canmore’s existing strengths. She said the town 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.” She highlighted a municipal retrofit program, developed in partnership with a Calgary organization, that focuses on supporting low-income households to improve energy efficiency.

Later, during the audience Q&A, Foubert spoke about the circular economy, using reusable cups as an example. She described how small actions like this reflect a broader shift toward systems that prioritize reuse over disposal. Her comments suggested that fostering a circular mindset can drive meaningful change at both the community and structural levels.

Foubert did not propose new regulations at the forum but positioned herself as someone who understands the systems already in place and how to build on them. Her remarks reflected a focus on leadership, collaboration, and making existing policies work effectively.

Wade Graham

Wade Graham delivered one of the most detailed environmental records of the evening. In his opening remarks, he declared that “climate change is real and caused by human activity” and listed multiple programs he has supported or helped implement while on council. These included Highway 1 wildlife fencing, e-bike rebates, fruit tree removal programs, leash enforcement, the Clean Energy Improvement Program, solar and EV charger incentives, and the Climate Emergency Action Plan.

Graham was asked a question about wildfire mitigation, which allowed him to speak to one of the town’s most visible recent environmental projects. He described the scale of firebreak construction 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 these firebreaks not only serve a public safety function but have also created habitat for elk, deer, bears, and wolves, restoring elements of the landscape that had been altered through a century of fire suppression.

Graham credited the provincial government for collaborating effectively with the town on wildfire mitigation. His answers reflected a combination of practical infrastructure work, policy follow-through, and long-term habitat management, positioning him as a candidate focused on implementation and results rather than new frameworks.

Jonathan Hazzard

Jonathan Hazzard approached the forum by situating Canmore’s environmental challenges within a broader national and historical context. In his opening remarks, he highlighted data on Canada’s forest loss, noting that approximately 40 million hectares of forest have been lost since 2001, representing about 10.9 percent of total forest cover. He also cited the combined economic cost of wildfires in Canada, which he estimated at 112 billion dollars annually.

Hazzard focused on wildfire preparedness in his question response. He advocated for early detection systems to catch fires before they spread, as well as stronger coordination with provincial and federal governments to increase helicopter and water bomber capacity. “We cannot do this by ourselves,” he said, emphasizing that Canmore alone does not have the resources to respond to the scale of wildfire risk facing the country.

Hazzard also raised concerns about road dust particulate pollution, explaining that the use of gravel for traction in winter contributes to poor air quality and respiratory issues. His remarks suggested a willingness to explore alternatives to reduce these impacts. On growth, he urged caution, suggesting that Canmore should be measured in its planning decisions given future environmental and infrastructure uncertainties.

Jeff Hilstad

Jeff Hilstad presented himself as a pragmatic candidate with a focus on balancing environmental responsibility with economic and community realities. In his opening statement, he spoke about living in Canmore as part of a young family and wanting to make decisions that ensure the town remains livable and economically resilient. He emphasized evidence-based decision-making and the need to take a thoughtful, balanced approach to growth.

Hilstad did not make extensive policy proposals during the forum, but his remarks centered on responsible growth that balances environmental concerns alongside community needs. He did not take explicit positions on specific projects during the discussion. His tone throughout reflected a focus on careful governance rather than sweeping new environmental initiatives.

Jeff Mah

Jeff Mah approached the forum by grounding his environmental perspective in both personal experience and structured decision-making. In his opening statement, he described a moment on Pigeon Mountain when he encountered a wolf, explaining that such experiences “reset our place in the natural world.” The story framed his candidacy around respect for Canmore’s ecological setting and the need for thoughtful planning.

Mah also highlighted his governance experience on several local boards and committees, including the Biosphere Institute, Community Housing, and the Bow Valley Waste Management Commission. His emphasis was on bringing analytical rigor to environmental decision-making, informed by his background in engineering and his involvement in local environmental organizations.

He did not outline specific new policies during the forum, but his remarks focused on integrating environmental considerations more deeply into planning and governance, drawing on his board experience to shape how decisions are made at the municipal level.

Karen Marra

Karen Marra leaned on her extensive experience in waste management and regional collaboration to frame her environmental vision. In her opening statement, she compared environmental responsibility to “keeping a house clean,” describing it as a shared, ongoing responsibility rather than something that can be addressed through one-off programs.

She highlighted her role as chair of the Bow Valley Waste Management Commission and as a board member of the Southern Alberta Waste-to-Energy Association. Marra pointed to the launch of the organics program as a key local initiative she’s been involved in and discussed regional efforts to move toward near net-zero waste facilities.

Marra’s comments focused on promoting existing incentive programs, such as solar and e-bike rebates and home energy retrofits, rather than introducing new regulations. She did not take positions on specific land use or wildfire projects during the forum. Her overall approach reflected a belief in incremental, collaborative environmental work built on programs already in place.

Jennifer Marran

Jennifer Marran used her opening statement to frame environmental protection as a guiding principle for governance. She emphasized applying an “environmental lens” to all council decisions rather than treating environmental policy as a separate category. Marran spoke about her personal connection to the Bow Valley landscape and the role that connection plays in shaping her commitment to stewardship.

During the audience Q&A, Marran was asked how the town should address community resistance to environmental initiatives, particularly around development. She began by acknowledging the emotional reaction many residents have to land clearing, saying, “It’s devastating to see clear cut.” But she added that existing guidelines regulate environmental impacts during development and that it’s important to communicate this clearly. Marran noted that developers are working to build attractive green spaces within their projects, and that part of the town’s role is to ensure residents understand what these guidelines mean in practice.

Her response emphasized listening to concerns, building shared understanding, and improving communication around how environmental standards are applied. She did not propose specific new programs or policies during the forum, nor did she take explicit positions on major projects. Her remarks focused on values and decision-making frameworks, indicating that if elected, she would prioritize ensuring environmental considerations are central to all council deliberations and public engagement.

Javan Mukhtarov

Javan Mukhtarov opened with a reflection on individual responsibility and community education, quoting Jane Goodall: “What you do makes a difference, and you have to decide what kind of difference you want to make.” He positioned himself as a candidate who wants to strengthen education and awareness as tools for environmental change.

Mukhtarov also noted that while education is critical, enforcement has a role to play in ensuring environmental policies are effective. He explained that rules need to be understood by the community, but they also need to be applied consistently so that good behavior isn’t undermined by those who choose not to participate.

He acknowledged that he is new to municipal politics and is still learning the details of the town’s environmental plans. He did not propose specific policy initiatives or take clear stances on major projects during the forum. Instead, he emphasized a willingness to listen, learn, and work with the community to build a shared understanding of Canmore’s environmental challenges.

Rob Murray

Rob Murray used his opening statement to draw a connection between his personal lifestyle and how he believes the town should approach environmental decisions. He spoke about applying sustainability principles in his own life and said that same mindset should be scaled “from micro to macro.” Murray highlighted the Palliser lands project, describing it as “a model community of both affordability and sustainability” built to near-net-zero standards. He positioned Palliser as proof that housing and environmental goals can be integrated effectively.

During the Q&A, Murray responded to a question about whether the town should require businesses to measure and manage their energy use. He supported the idea in principle, saying that accurate measurement is essential for meaningful action. He added that the process would need to be simple and accessible, acknowledging that “businesses are busy running their businesses.” Murray also said the town would likely need to provide some form of incentive to encourage participation.

Murray did not introduce new environmental policies during the forum but emphasized applying sustainable building practices and environmental thinking consistently across town decisions. His comments reflected a focus on extending existing frameworks rather than creating entirely new ones.

Rob Seeley

Rob Seeley framed his opening remarks around communication and community engagement. He argued that the town needs to improve how it communicates environmental policies and initiatives to residents. His perspective emphasized bridging the gap between policy and public understanding, so that community members are more aware of and engaged in existing programs.

During a transportation question later in the forum, Seeley mentioned that he drives for Roam Transit, giving him firsthand experience with the regional system. He used this perspective to speak about how the system functions day-to-day, noting that he sees both its strengths and areas where it could improve.

Seeley did not make specific policy proposals or take clear stances on individual projects during the forum. His focus remained on improving outreach and information flow, suggesting that better communication could strengthen the impact of environmental initiatives already underway.

James (Strickly) Strickert

James “Strickly” Strickert stood out for proposing alternative ideas to the town’s current growth and land use direction. In his remarks, he said he opposed the Palliser lands rezoning, arguing that the site is “the sunniest spot in all of Canmore and the largest piece of land we have left.” Instead of housing, he suggested building a sports complex with solar panels on the site. He added, “I think we should start building up, not out,” advocating for increased building height and density in already developed areas rather than expanding further outward.

On wildfire, Strickert called for controlled burns during winter months as part of a proactive mitigation strategy. He also raised concerns about transportation infrastructure, particularly around railway crossings, and suggested exploring topographical solutions to improve safety and reduce congestion.

Strickert’s positions reflected a willingness to depart from the town’s current plans in favor of alternative approaches to growth, wildfire management, and infrastructure.