I’m thankful to receive a response and heartened by its thorougness and sincerity. I would have preferred, however, if there had been more specifics to address my concerns about the removal of environmental protections and to indicate how the discussion paper would be modified to provide balance between short-term economic growth and long-term environmental sustainability. At least the government appears to be addressing water and marine ecosystems as a starting point. They are asking for our feedback on this, so let me know what you think after looking at the links provided below. You can add your voice to the BEA or craft your own response.

I’d also be interested in your impression overall. Is our Canadian government striking the right balance between economic growth and environmental sustainability? Take a look at MP Sahota’s letter below and let me know what you think.

Dear David,

Thank you for taking the time to write to me and for sharing such a thoughtful submission on the Government of Canada’s proposals for getting major projects built in Canada. I appreciate you taking the time to outline your concerns and to share the perspective of the Brampton Environmental Alliance.

I know how strongly you and the Alliance have advocated for responsible environmental stewardship over the years, and I appreciate the important point you have raised about finding the right balance between economic development and protecting Canada’s natural environment.

We have been clear that we are not just building Canada, we are building it well. That means creating the infrastructure and economic opportunities Canadians need while protecting our environment, respecting Indigenous rights, and ensuring that projects are developed responsibly.

Marine conservation is both a moral responsibility and a national priority. This means working in partnership with Indigenous peoples, protecting valued waters and species, and respecting local ways of life, while also ensuring that critical infrastructure and key shipping routes remain safe and resilient. This balanced approach can support good jobs, strengthen tourism, and attract long-term investment in modern, sustainable infrastructure.

Water is also at the heart of Canada’s identity, economy, and security. Protecting it is not optional, but fundamental. That is why our government is taking action to safeguard our lakes, rivers, and wetlands through strong measures that protect biodiversity and keep our waters healthy for future generations.

We are also developing Canada’s first National Water Security Strategy to address our biggest freshwater challenges and strengthen water security for communities, the environment, and the economy. Healthy freshwater ecosystems are essential to biodiversity, culture, and the resilience of communities facing challenges such as flooding and drought.

As part of this work, we are seeking input from Canadians on how we can strengthen water security across the country. Given your experience and the work of the Brampton Environmental Alliance, I would encourage you to share your views through the public engagement process. You can participate here. Responses are welcome until October 25^th, 2026

To build Canada strong, we must build it together. Our approach is grounded in collaboration with provinces, territories, Indigenous partners, communities, and stakeholders to grow our industries, attract investment, create good jobs, and reduce emissions. Supporting our economy and protecting our environment are not competing goals. They can, and must, be pursued together to secure Canada’s leadership and a stronger, more resilient future.

Thank you again, David, for sharing your perspective and for the work you continue to do through the Brampton Environmental Alliance. I truly appreciate hearing from constituents, like you, and I value our ongoing conversations on these issues, and look forward to continuing to hear your thoughts as this work moves forward. Please continue to reach out to my office regarding matters that are important to you.

Sincerely,

Hon. Ruby Sahota Member of Parliament Brampton North—Caledon Tel. (905) 840-0505 Fax. (905) 840-1778 Ruby.Sahota@parl.gc.ca Get Weekly Updates Here

High levels of complaints from residents and motorists are compelling politicians to take immediate action. Bicycle infrastructure that took years at significant cost to plan and implement, is being ripped out in weeks or months at additional tax-payer expense. Municipal election candidates are building their platforms on a promise of removing more cycling infrastructure if they are elected at the end of next month.

Yet, on the other side of the issue, are active transportation and environmental advocates, public health and traffic demand managment professionals, and city planning experts who say Ontario needs to be building more cycling infrastructure in its cities, not less.

This post is an attempt to elevate the conversation, to look at underlying issues facing cities across the Province and then ask the question, “If not bike lanes then what?

Most cities are facing similar issues that can be lumped into the following categories:

• Road capacity issues contributing to traffic congestion and parking availability,
• Public health issues related to road related injury and death due to excessive speed and aggressive driving,
• Road related air quality issues leading to greater incidence of diseases such as asthma, COPD, chronic fatique,
• Health issues related to lack of sufficient exercise leading to diseases such as Type II diabetes and cardiovascular disease
• Health impacts due to climate – change including, excessive heat, flood risk, wind damage, and disease caused by invasive species migration, i.e. ticks,
• Quality of life environmental issues related to carbon emissions, traffic noise, road construction, salt, contributing to climate change, habitat loss, and species extinction.

All of these issues have a productivity and economic impact amounting to billions of dollars, in addition to personal pain and suffering and, deterioration of quality of life.

So here’s the thing, bike lanes contribute to addressing ALL of these issues.

Bike lanes encourage more cycling behaviour .

Bike lanes actually increase road vehicle carrying capacity leading to less road congestion not more.

Bike lanes are an effective tool for calming traffic, leading to safer roads for ALL road users

More cycling means more people get more exercise leading to better health outcomes

More cycling means fewer cars on the road meaning less congestion, less pollution, and safer roads

Installing bike lanes, leads to a safer, healthier, more connected communities, improved quality of life and helps meet our national and global responsibility to reduce environmental impacts.

On the one hand we have a significant number of people who want bike lanes removed because of a perceived loss of personal convenience, exacerbated by temporary construction issues that won’t be there in a year’s time.

On the other hand we have significant community benefit from bike lanes in the form of improved road safety, better health outcomes and environmental benefits. So my challenge to all of those people who want bike lanes removed is, what are you going to do instead to address these issues as Brampton continues on its path to 1M residents in the next few years. To avoid total gridlock as forecasted in Brampton’s Mobility Plan, how will Brampton achieve its goal by 2050 of getting 70,000 people to wake up each morning and say, “I’m choosing not to drive my car to work or school etc. today.”

On September 2nd, the Brampton Environmental Alliance had the privilege of leading a workshop for the incoming class of medical students at the Toronto Metropolitan University School of Medicine as part of their Community Day. The session was organized and facilitated by BEA board member Jashan Gill, asissted by fellow BEA board members and TMU medical students. The goal was simple but meaningful: to introduce Brampton’s future physicians to the deep connection between environmental and human health, and to show them that the conditions people live in; the air they breathe, the heat they endure, the green space they can access, all shape health long before a patient ever reaches a clinic.

The afternoon combined a presentation on the BEA’s work with a series of hands-on activities. The session grounded big ideas in local realities, from the Emerald Energy from Waste incinerator and its impact on nearby communities, to the citizen-science work of the Brampton Air Quality Network, our community-owned air monitoring project built in partnership with Algoma University.

Roughly 30 incoming medical students took part, engaging thoughtfully with questions of environmental justice, community health, and the physician’s role as an advocate. The depth of the students’ thinking was remarkable. Working through realistic, Brampton-based patient scenarios, groups connected childhood asthma to nearby industrial emissions, extreme heat to housing and isolation among seniors, and long commutes to traffic pollution and food deserts, consistently tracing health back to its environmental and social roots. In the “$1 Million Brampton Challenge,” they designed thoughtful, measurable solutions, from multilingual public transit improvements for newcomer families to air quality advocacy campaigns, each with a plan for tracking real impact.

It was a genuine reminder that these future physicians are already thinking like community advocates. Many left eager to get involved, whether through air quality data analysis, public health communication, or mentoring Brampton high school students through our Youth Environmental Health Ambassador Program. It was a powerful reminder that the next generation of doctors is ready to think beyond the clinic and into the community.

Looking ahead, the BEA is excited to continue building this partnership with the TMU School of Medicine, deepening opportunities for medical students to engage with our air quality work and youth programming throughout the year. Special thanks to our board members Amisha Moorjani, Chaya Chengappa, and Polly Thornham for helping make the day run smoothly, to Gunjan Sharda for her work preparing the session, and to TMU medical students Jordan Ramnarine and Helen Abay, along with the second-year Orientation Leaders, for their partnership and facilitation support. Our thanks as well to the incoming students for their energy, curiosity, and commitment to the health of our community. Welcome to Brampton, we can’t wait to work alongside you!

Seniors for Climate is hosting Dr. Katharine Hayhoe for a webinar discussing the critical importance of talking about the climate crisis. Dr. Hayhoe is an atmospheric scientist whose research focuses on understanding the impacts of climate change on people and the planet. She is known for her ability to translate complex climate issues into accessible public discourse.

The webinar – Climate Conversations Matter – Let’s Get Talking – will take place Wednesday, September 9th, at 6:30pm ET. You can register by clicking the button below:

If you’re unfamiliar with Dr. Hayhoe’s work, there is an excellent video showcasing a recent CBC interview with her. She breaks down complex issues quickly and clearly, and speaks to the dire need to reduce carbon emissions to manage this growing crisis. You can watch that interview here, and we hope it will inspire some questions to ask during this week’s webinar!

You can reach out with any questions you may have at contactinfo@seniorsforclimate.org. We hope to see you next week!

This webinar will kick off Seniors for Climate events across the country this fall to engage more Canadians in the climate conversation. We have to act now, because Later is Too Late!

This first article focuses on Brampton’s air quality which is being affected in numerous ways. Steve talks about the obvious signs of air pollution, such as wildfire smoke, and the more insideous and equally dangerous forms, such those coming from our cars’ tailpipes or from local industry.

According to Steve, the economic costs of air pollution are staggaring at $146 billion annually. The human cost is equally concerning with 17,400 premature deaths and millions of productivity days lost due to air pollution. Read the whole article for more background and statistics.

While many aspects of air pollution are beyond our control, Steve talks about the things we can do to impact local air quality, like increasing the number of air quality monitoring stations in the city and encouraging our civic leaders to build Brampton in ways that reduce the need for car travel.

As the municipal election approaches be sure to ask your Brampton Council canditates about the actions they would take to reduce polution in our city. Stay tuned for more articles on what you can do to make Brampton a more environmentally sustainable city.

This, while facilitating increased pollution and carbon emissions, all in the name of economic growth, affordable homes, and or creating new jobs. These objectives aren’t bad. It’s only that our quality of life and even life itself is dependent on having robust ecosystems that provide us with valuable services such as the air we breathe, the water we drink and a comfortable climate in which we live. It is possible to protect the environment while still having a robust economy as shown by countries such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands. It takes balance and creative policy making, traits our current Provincial government seems to lack.

Equally troubling is the Conservative Government’s efforts to stifle debate in the Provincial legislature and reduce the transparency of their policy’s true intent. The Greenbelt land swaps and subsequent backpeddaling are excellent examples. So it is in the context of the disengenuous nature of this government that I bring your attention to another potential environmental fiasco in the making, this time, related to the ownership of water and wastewater systems, in the Province generally, but specfically here in Peel Region.

A Bit of History

In November 2025 the Provincial Government tabled Bill 60 (Water and Wastewater Public Corporations Act). Passed with little debate and no public consultation, this Bill authorizes the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to take water and wastewater services away from local governments and assign them to separate water and wastewater public corporations (WWPC). Bill 60 sparked controversy when it was passed. In response to public criticism the government passed ammendments to Bill 60 as part of Bill 98 in the spring of 2026. Key amendments include:

• Restricted Share Ownership: Shares of a designated water and wastewater public corporation (WWPC) can only be issued or transferred to a municipality, in the Province of Ontario, the Government of Canada, or an agent of any of them. [1, 2]
• Asset Transfer Controls: A new section (Section 9.1) prohibits a WWPC from transferring or selling its water and sewage infrastructure assets unless the corporation’s board of directors explicitly declares the asset is no longer required for those services. [1, 2]
• Debt Separation: Long-term municipal debt obligations cannot be directly transferred to the new corporation. The Minister is given regulation-making authority, however, to require the corporation to make cost-sharing payments back to the municipality for capital works debt. [1, 2]
• Labour & Service Continuity: The amendments guarantee continuous employment, successor rights, and pay equity protections for municipal employees transitioning into the new corporate structure. Existing employment, insurance, and collective agreements are carried forward seamlessly.
• Regulatory Oversight: Systems managed by these public corporations will continue to be treated as municipal drinking water systems under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002, preserving existing public health oversight and operator certification rules. [1, 2]

While groups like the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) welcomed these adjustments which appear to protect public sector ownership, the bill still faces opposition from environmental advocates and labour organizations. Critics argue that allowing shares to be held by an “agent” of the government leaves a loophole for institutional investors (like public pension funds) to financialize water infrastructure meaning a focus on shareholder value rather than ratepayer efficiency. [1, 2, 3, 4].

So what’s the real story?

I recently spoke with Rebecca Kolarich, Water Program Manager with Environmental Defence. Her analysis is that, if the Province was sincere about not privitizing water and waste water systems, then the government could have built more safeguards into the ammendments of Bill 98. According to Rebecca, “Shares can be held by an ‘agent of the government’ but the legislation doesn’t include a proper definition of what an agent is,” “In addition” she continues, “Bill 60, as written, allows the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to designate WWPCs under the Business Corporations Act. By definition these are for-profit organizations that are legally required to make money. Instead the Province could have required these companies to be formed as Municipal Services Corporations”.

Municipal Services Corporations (MSCs) are distinct, business-like entities, wholly owned by a municipality (or shared with other public-sector organizations) to deliver public services or manage infrastructure. MSCs may be set up as, for-profit, or not-for-profit but the difference is that they are strictly publicly accountable and the sole shareholder is the municipality, meaning all dividends and profits flow directly back into the public system rather than to private investors. That the Provincial Government chose a for-profit legal model where shares can be held by independent agents, suggests that the intent is to leave the door open for these services to be privatized.

The situation in Peel is particularly troubling. By 2029 jurisdiction over water and wastewater services will be transferred from Peel to the three lower-tier municipalities which will then be required to deliver services through a newly created WWPC. According to an article published in the Carleton University News, ownership of all of the water and wasterwater infrastrucutre assets, “would be transferred to the WWPC, while Peel’s existing debt remains with the municipal government”. If that happens Peel’s water and wastewater infrastructure would be owned by a for profit company, while Peel’s property taxpayers would be on the hook for paying down Peel’s debt obligations. The very fact that this could happen should be unsettling to all Peel residents.

The big question here for the Provincial Government is, why fix something that doesn’t appear to be broken? Peel Region boasts a highly ranked water and wastewater track record, consistently achieving a 100% inspection rating from the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks across its municipal drinking water systems. The region successfully delivers daily services to over 1.5 million residents, treating over 1.7 billion litres of drinking water and 660 million litres of wastewater daily. [1, 2, 3].

Bill 60 and Bill 98 aligns with seemingly broader efforts to both expand financialization of Ontario’s public assets while at the same time trasferring power away from municipal governments and non-government organizations such as conservation authorities.

Over the past 6 years, municipalities have lost much of their control over things like road engineering, environmental regulations and land-use management. Sources of external municipal income have been curtailed especially related to development charges and automated speed enforcement cameras. More progressive tools to change traffic patterns like road tolls and congestion charges are a non-starter in the Province. Municpalities can no longer use bike lanes as a traffic calming measure or as a way of encouraging more active modes of travel. The Province’s push to build highway 413 caused massive changes to Brampton’s integrated development plan for Heritage Heights, destroying the complete street urban boulevard concept which could have been an economic and cultural focal point for the area.

Ministerial Zoning Order’s (MZO) are another power centralization factor that have now become the norm for pushing through contentious development projects. The Minister can use an MZO to override the wishes of a municipal council or the recommendations of staff. The Province has a track record of forcing municipalities into expanding their urban boundaries when it may make more sense to support higher housing density instead, thus preserving land for green space and agricultural uses.

The government is also disallowing muncipalities from including climate change policies in their official plans. Municipal governments can no longer impose higher building standards than what the Provincial building code specifies. Progressive councils who wish to hold their developers to a higher standard, such as incorporating green roofs or solar panels into building design no longer have that option.

Urban tree canopy within parkland greenspace is one of the defining characteristics of great cities. Yet changes to parkland dedication policies now allow developers more lattitude on what counts towards minimum parkland dedication requirements. This may lead to less parkland as a ratio of population, as cities across the Province continue growing. Building great cities does not seem to be a priority for this Provincial government, even though greenspace and tree canopy contributes significantly to health, quality of life and the ability of cities to adapt to climate change.

Most recently the Province is directing the Independent Electricity System Operator IESO to accommodate the needs of large power consumers, like AI data centres, potentially at the expense of standard ratepayers like you and me. This is yet another problem that this provincial government is creating for us. I will explore this further in a future article.

BEA Board members David and Dayle Laing, along with BEA member Cindy Evans visited MP Sonia Sidhu at her Parliamentary Office on Wednesday June 19th. Topics discussed included the status of the Active Transportation Fund, the New Horizons for Seniors grant program and general concerns about current government policy regarding the environment.

Active Transportation Fund

Beginning in 2026-2027, the Government of Canada is investing in permanent public transit programming under the Canada Public Transit Fund to support transit in communities of all sizes across Canada. This includes targeted funding for specific types of public transit and active transportation projects ranging from capital to planning.

Established in 2021, the Active Transportation Fund earmarked $400M to be spent over 5 years to support the expansion and enhancement of active transportation infrastructure, to make travel by active transportation easier, safer, more convenient and more enjoyable. According to Velo Canada Bikes, a national cycling advocacy organization, very little of that money has been spent since program inception.. In 2023, Brampton submitted 2 “shovel ready projects” to the fund. This included infrastructure repairs to pedestrian bridges throughout the city and the construction of multi-use paths along Westcreek, Advance, and Alfred Khune Blvds. Most of the work on both projects has been completed but funds could now be allocated to other active transportation projects including infrastructure on Howden and Charolais where bike lanes either have or a destined to be removed. MP Sidhu asked for more details and committed to help Brampton secure federal funds for active tranportation projects in her riding of Brampton South.

New Horizons for Seniors grant

The New Horizons for Seniors is a federal grant program to support projects that are designed by seniors and for seniors in their communities. The program is designed to engage seniors in volunteer activities, mentor others, create community and support new and existing community projects aimed at seniors. The BEA is working on a grant submission for 2027 that will provide edcuational opportunities for seniors in climate adaptation, and healthy aging. More details will be provided in the coming months. MP Sidhu committed to providing a letter of support for the BEA proposed project.

Government of Canada Environmental Policy

Finally, the visit with MP Sidhu was an opportunity for the BEA to express concern about the Federal government’s position on increasing fossil fuel production and streamlining big projects at the expense of environmental controls. MP Sidhu listened to our concerns and reiterated the government’s position on the importance of the environment to long-term growth and economic stability.

All in all it was a good meeting that accomplished BEA objectives. We thank MP Sidhu for her time and attention.

Climate Change Award, Individual: Julius Lindsay
Stewardship Award, Individual: Jeya Thavachandren
Stewardship Award, Business/Organization: The Food Quotient
Environmental Youth Award: Human Nature Projects Canada
Environmental Legacy Award: Pauline Thornham

Amisha Moorjani, was recognized as owner of The Food Quotient a catering business focused on preparing healthy meals in an environmentally sustainable way. The business buys from local food sources and uses reuseable packaging wherever possible.

Amisha is member of the Brampton Environment Advisory Committee. She became a BEA Board member in 2024 and has been an active contributor to various BEA projects and events. She has recently taken on the role of BEA Community Outreach Coordinator to help bring organizations together in the common goal of having Brampton grow as an environmentally sustainable city.

Polly Thornham was recognized for her outstanding environmental work over many years. She is an active member of Sierra Club, BikeBrampton, and the Green Party of Ontario. She has run as a Green Party candidate at both the Provincial and Federal level. She is a past member of the Brampton Environmental Advisory Committee and the Brampton Active Transportation Advisory Committee. Polly joined the BEA Board in 2024 and is a tireless contributor to BEA projects and events.

The BEA congratulates all of the Brampton Grow Green Environmental Award winners for 2026!

• Arbitrarily compress all federal decision-making for major projects into an one-year timeline, without specifying which types of “major projects” will receive this preferential treatment
• Wholly exempt major projects regulated by the Canadian Energy Regulator (i.e. international/interprovincial pipelines and electricity transmission lines) from the current legal requirement to undergo rigorous impact assessments under the Impact Assessment Act (IAA)
• Empower the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) to conduct impact assessments of nuclear and uranium projects under the IAA, and to determine whether such projects would cause significant negative federal effects. This would effectively sideline the Impact Assessment Act for these types of projects, relying instead on the CNSC to carry out robust, credible, and participatory impact assessments of nuclear projects, and make final determinations about whether such projects may cause significant adverse effects that cannot be mitigated.
• Enact new legislation to establish “Federal Economic Zones” through regional assessments which would oust the requirement for project-level assessments for a broad range of “pre-approved” infrastructure and industrial development in such zones
• Eviscerate current federal permitting regimes in relation to navigation, ocean dumping, fish and fish habitat, and exempt major projects from the critically important provision in the Species at Risk Act which prohibits the federal Minister from issuing permits for activities that may jeopardize the survival or recovery of species at risk (i.e. orcas)
• Allow unspecified early construction activities for major projects to occur well before an impact assessment decision has been made to approve or reject the project.

The BEA Board approved the following position statement in response to the Government of Canada’s proposal.

My name is David Laing. I am 74 years old and have been living in Brampton Ontario for close to 50 years. I am also the President of the Brampton Environmental Alliance, and I am writing this submission both on my own behalf as well as that of the Alliance. After reviewing the “Getting Major Projects Built in Canada” discussion paper I have grave concerns about the direction being taken by the Government of Canada as outlined therein.

I have lived long enough to experience a time before there were robust environmental protection regulations in Canada, particularly in Ontario, when Lake Erie was considered to be a “dead lake” with no oxygen to support aquatic life, when Lake Ontario was so polluted that water activities such as swimming and paddleboarding in the Lake were considered unthinkable, when toxic effluent floating on the Don River was so concentrated that it actually caught fire on more than one occasion. If enacted, I fear that the proposals in this discussion paper will be taking us back to those times, of the environmental wild west in the name of economic growth. Surely there must be a better way for Canadians to address the threats to our national sovereignty than to destroy the very essence of what makes Canada great.

The purpose of having environmental regulations is to allow governments to make challenging decisions about which parts of our environment should be saved or destroyed based on scientific evidence and expert analysis. Their purpose shouldn’t be to merely slow down project implementation but to decide if a project should proceed or not. That analysis may take a year, or it may take 10 depending on project complexity and how much is known about the impact on affected eco-systems. Some projects simply shouldn’t be built because of the level of damage they will cause, no matter how much economic growth potential they promise. Do we really want to put the fate of Canada’s natural heritage assets in the hands of politicians who are almost always driven by 4- or 5-year election cycles and are prone to populist pressures? We think not.

Making decisions that cause environmental destruction must be carried out with the utmost care and with as much knowledge as possible. The stakes are very high, and the likelihood of “unintended consequences” is significant. We must be conscious of the fact that, once an ecosystem is destroyed, it is gone for decades, once a species is extinct, it is gone forever.

For environmental regulations to be truly effective, they must act more like a constitutional framework, representing the fundamental values of the country and its citizens. Support for the environment cannot be viewed as a “fashion statement”, in favour today, and out of favour tomorrow or next year. We must find out from Canadians what aspects of Canada they hold truly dear. The unique aspects of this country, such as the Salish Sea Orca, the rich aquatic eco-systems of the Douglas Channel and the eco-system services provided by the peat bogs of Northern Ontario, to name but a few. Only then can we truly know what should be saved and what can be sacrificed in the name of economic growth.

Accordingly, the BEA supports CELA’s position that being to, “immediately withdraw the ill-conceived Discussion Paper proposals which, if implemented, would constitute the most significant rollback of federal environmental laws in recent decades”. Like CELA, members of the BEA do not oppose economic activity, good jobs, or sustainable resource management.

As inspiration, I recommend that the Government look to the Haida Nation with the sustainable practices they have implemented with their vast wealth of forest, fish, and minerals, and the excellent relationships they have established with the B.C. Government as well as the various extraction industries. The Haida have managed to find that delicate balance, where the environment and the economy support each other helping to ensure the health of current and future generations by not repeating the mistakes of the past. I believe that most Canadians want what we want, economic prosperity in the context of strong(er) environmental protections, ensuring that, what we hold dear about Canada, will last forever.

David Laing – President, Brampton Environmental Alliance

https://bramptonea.org 416-402-3778