Mike McGraw

For six years I served on the Advisory Committee for the Cheakamus Centre, the North Vancouver Outdoor School, where generations of North Van kids have learned about the natural world. In 2011 I helped brief elected officials on the Centre's new Environmental Learning Centre for elementary students.

As strata council president for a mixed-use building here in the City, I've supported energy-efficiency and EV charging upgrades for our owners and businesses.

When I ran my software company, we worked largely remotely and cut unnecessary travel where possible, which reduced our footprint.

I mainly walk within the City, and I also cycle and take transit. At home, I'm very committed to recycling.

As mayor, I'd push for climate measures that deliver measurable results, report on them in plain language, and plan them alongside the housing and transportation decisions that shape our emissions most.

Council is Lonsdale Energy Corporation's sole shareholder, so Council has the authority to require a published pathway. Early in the term, I'd bring forward a motion directing LEC to publish its carbon-neutral pathway within 12 months, with a public progress report to Council at the six-month mark.

That report needs to be more than a statement of targets. It should show how LEC gets from where it is today to its own interim targets for 2027 and 2030 and net-zero by 2050, what each step costs, and what it means for the rates connected residents and businesses pay. It should also include the cooling plan LEC has repeatedly said is coming, because in a warming climate, a utility the City requires new buildings to join can't leave that question unanswered.

I'd also push for an independent technical review, reporting to Council rather than to LEC, to test the pathway's assumptions, including its reliance on natural gas and renewable natural gas, before Council accepts it.

After it's published, I'd push for annual public reporting on LEC's actual emissions against the pathway, in plain language, alongside its rate report.

RNG makes sense as a bridge while zero-emission heat comes online, but it shouldn't become a permanent cost for connected residents and businesses. Dropping it and burning more conventional natural gas in its place isn't the answer either. It has to be replaced by zero-emission heat.

That starts with getting the facts in front of the public. I'd push for LEC to disclose how much it's spending on RNG, how that compares to conventional gas, and how much of recent rate increases it accounts for. Council approves LEC's rates, so it should see that clearly before it approves the next increase.

I'd also push for an independent technical review, reporting to Council rather than to LEC, to assess the RNG strategy and what it would take to replace it with heat recovery and electrification. The Urban Heat Recovery Centre needs to come online on schedule, and its output should displace purchased gas, fossil and renewable, before LEC expands further.

When the review reports, I'd push for Council to set a public, dated target for phasing RNG out of LEC's mix, with annual reporting on progress. I won't commit to a date before that work is done, because a date without the engineering and cost analysis behind it wouldn't be credible.

In July, the Metro Vancouver board voted to begin moving from four sewerage areas to one regional area. North Shore councillors called for exactly that in 2013, but it took 13 years and a $3.86 billion plant to get there. That's the best chance yet to rebalance a formula that has the North Shore covering 37% of this plant's cost with 8% of the region's population. The new formula hasn't been designed yet, and CNV needs a mayor at that table making sure the numbers match the direction.

I'd also push the federal government to revisit its contribution. Ottawa committed $212.3 million, one-third of the eligible cost based on the original estimate of about $700 million. The project is now $3.86 billion, and the federal share should reflect what it actually costs.

What rarely gets mentioned is the financing. The plant is being paid off over 30 years, and Metro projects about $1.9 billion in finance costs on top of the construction budget. I'd push for any new federal or provincial dollars to reduce the annual household bill right away, not just the debt at the back end.

Here at home, I'd push for a requirement, written into how the City reports to residents, that any Metro cost obligation like this gets disclosed as soon as staff know about it, not once it's already locked in, along with an independent inquiry into how costs escalated.

The City's canopy has sat at about 20% since 2007, and its new target is 24% by 2055. That's a modest goal on a long timeline, and holding steady for almost two decades has mostly come from planting on City land while the city has grown quickly around it. Mature trees are infrastructure, the same as parks, and they take decades to replace.

As mayor, I'd push for interim targets every five years in the City's urban forest plan, reported publicly, so residents can see whether we're on track well before 2055.

On private land, retention has to be built into planning from the first conversation with an applicant. That means identifying high-value trees early, before a building design is locked in, and giving staff the flexibility on setbacks and siting to keep them. When a tree truly can't be kept, replacement requirements in the tree bylaw should reflect the size of what's being lost and favour large-canopy species, with cash-in-lieu going to planting in the same neighbourhood, starting with those that have the least canopy today.

That fits the broader approach I'm running on: planning whole neighbourhoods first, rather than letting one application at a time decide what they become. None of this should add delay for homeowners or builders who are doing the right thing. Clear rules up front are faster for everyone.

The City's tree bylaw already applies to sites that aren't being redeveloped. In multi-family, commercial and other zones, removing a tree 20 cm or larger needs a permit whether or not anything is being built. The exception is single-family and duplex lots, which are exempt.

That exemption deserves a real look. About a third of the City's canopy is on private land, and the City's target is to grow from about 20% canopy to 24% by 2055. If we're serious about that target, we need to know how much canopy sits on those lots and whether it's being lost.

But I'm not going to promise a new permit requirement for every homeowner before that work is done. As mayor, I'd push for a review of the exemption that measures canopy change on single-family and duplex lots, looks at how other municipalities handle it, and asks homeowners directly what would work for them.

Whatever comes out of it has to be simple and affordable to comply with. A homeowner with a large tree in their yard shouldn't face the same process as a developer clearing a site. Incentives like planting support and maintenance grants may do more for canopy on those lots than a new permit ever would, and the review should weigh both.