Canada’s capacity for brownfield redevelopment is currently patchy and inconsistent. As a federation, there are three orders of government dealing with the issue—federal, provincial and municipal —with differing levels of expertise and authority. In addition there is a fourth important institution—the financial system—that plays a major role in promoting and financing redevelopment.

Chief among the federal shortfalls is a lack of a brownfield “champion” or even a coordinating office to bring together the different aspects of where federal actions could make a difference in fostering brownfield redevelopment. At present the pieces of the puzzle fall in disparate departments or ministries with no overall guiding strategy. Secondly is the long-held belief that brownfields are an environmental issue and environmental matters have not been near the top of government priorities for the past decade. The recent National Brownfield Remediation Strategy released by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE) (www.nrtee-trnee.ca) showed that the issue is first and foremost economic, with social and environmental co-benefits. Interestingly enough, the strategy was requested by the then Finance Minister, now Prime Minister, Paul Martin so perhaps this perception will change.

Finally, there is the perception that the brownfields issue is one for provincial and municipal governments. The problem lies partly in the nature of a federation, with jealous guarding of powers and authority. There have been some efforts made to assist municipalities in funding firstly site assessments and, quite recently, cleanup and redevelopment, through the “Green Municipal Funds”, financed by the federal government, but handled through the Canadian Federation of Municipalities. Where the federal government can take a leadership role is in tweaking elements of the tax system to assist the cash flow of redevelopers, making funding available for advancing technological innovation.

On the provincial level the picture is somewhat more encouraging although individual provinces’ actions and capacities vary greatly. Quebec has been the leader in encouraging redevelopment through its “revisols” programme that funds a substantial percentage of remediation expenses in cities and towns in the province. On the negative side, many of the remediated properties have been cleaned through traditional “dig and dump” methods rather than soil clean-up.

Ontario has brought in new brownfields legislation, that awaits passage of the regulations to become fully effective, which provides tools to municipalities to encourage brownfield redevelopment while limiting the liability for municipalities where they have to take over properties in tax arrears.

Another area that has led to a failure to actively encourage redevelopment has been lack of awareness at a provincial level of the benefits—economic, environmental and social—of brownfield redevelopment, despite examples from across the country. This is beginning to disappear as generally cash-strapped provincial governments realize the real economic flow that can come from cleaning up unproductive lands. Currently two provinces are reviewing brownfields legislation, particularly with reference to liability, and one is considering adoption of a number of the Strategy’s recommendations.

With knowledge of the benefits, the real test comes in the will-power of individual provinces to take the necessary actions, not just state intentions. The first chance to assess this will be in Ontario where the Throne Speech of the newly elected Liberal government made specific reference to promoting brownfield redevelopment, although not to direct funding from the province.

At the municipal level, where responsibility for most of the brownfields ultimately lies, there is a tremendous gap between those municipalities that actively promote redevelopment and those that continue along the old way of doing things. As creatures of the province, municipalities have only the powers allocated to them and, as stated earlier, not all provinces have passed on the necessary authority to offer incentives.

Many municipalities lack inventories of sites or have no power–of-entry rights (now granted in Ontario) to perform assessments on lands subject to a failed tax sale process; they lack municipal incentive programs and don’t have brownfield policies in their planning documents; they don’t subscribe to compact urban form planning programs and lack flexibility in zoning requirements, parkland dedication requirements and parking and building regulations, among others.

Without a large number of successful brownfield redevelopment projects behind them, the traditional banks remain loath to offer mortgages on brownfield redevelopments without “clean” collateral or similar financial guarantees.Without a volume of brownfield projects coming in through their doors, most of the banks have not put together the expertise needed to develop a successful portfolio of such properties. As a result, much of the financing activity goes through “grey markets” whose rates, far higher than banks for regular mortgages. How will this change? Either through federal or federal/provincial mechanisms for mortgage guarantees on brownfields, or through one or two banks actively seeking brownfield redevelopment projects and demonstrating the inherent profitability of such a portfolio.

In conclusion, although institutional capacity at all levels of government and banking currently suffers from shortfalls, the picture is gradually brightening. Implementation of a number of recommendations put forward in the NRTEE Strategy can rapidly move Canada into a leading position in the encouragement of redevelopment.

Angus H. Ross is chair of the National Brownfield Redevelopment Strategy Task Force