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.”

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.

• 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

The database is searchable by Councillor, specific item, and category

The summary chart below is captured from the database. It shows the relative volume of decisions in categories related to transportation, land-use, energy management, waste management including air & water quality, and protection of nature. It shows the number of decisions by year. It also ranks the Councillors based on the number of negative votes. Negative votes can be either a NO vote against positive climate policy or a YES vote on a decision that is damaging for the environment.

What we’ve discovered so far:

• Most Council votes are either Carried or Lost rather than recorded by individual Councillor. This reduces transparency because it is more challenging to see individual Councillors’ positions.
• Many motions are bundled into Consent Agenda. This limits debate on issues and again reduces transparency and accountability.
• Disconnect between broad policy and specific motions. Often Council will vote in favour of a strategic plan but then against specific actions that support that plan. An example would be a land-use plan that defines areas destined to be higher density but then Council votes no to a specific proposal that conforms to that density guideline.

What you can do?

The municipal election is coming this October. We have an opportunity to make the environment and climate part of the election discussion.

• Raise Awareness – Share the Climate Voting Records Site
• Review Council Voting Records on Environmental Issues
• Support Policies that Prioritize Climate & Community Health
• Ask your Councillor about their environmental voting record to show you care.
• When a candidate comes knocking, ask them what they will do to help Brampton mitigate climate change and adapt to the changes that are coming.
• Help us Advocate for transparent decision-making and more recorded votes for the new Council term 2026-2030

Food

The meeting started with informal networking, snacks and refreshments provided by The Food Quotient

Notable Guests

The meeting was attended by several notable guests including:

• Ruby Sahota- MP Brampton North – Caledon, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime) 
• Sonia Sidhu – MP Brampton South,
• Graham McGregor – MPP Brampton North, Minister of Citizenship and Multiculturalism
• Dr. Therese Chan – Dean Toronto Metropolitan University, School of Medicine
• Sharanjit Kaur – Chief Administration Officer TMU School of Medicine,
• Dr. Priya Chopra – Course Director TMU School of Medicine
• Dayana Gomez – Executive Director, Credit Valley Conservation Foundation

Speakers

Pam Cooper, Manager of Environmental Planning at the City of Brampton, provided an overview of City environmental plans and activities. Things to look forward to in 2026 from Brampton include:

• Grow Green Festival and Awards Ceremony – Saturday June 6th at Jim Archdekin Recreation Centre,
• Climate Change Adaptation Plan
• Invasive Species Management Plan
• Numerous Community Stewardship Events and
• A Mystery Restoration Project (details to be announced soon).

Karen Wirsig, Senior Program Manager with Environmental Defence then spoke about how her organization is continuing to challenge the Province’s plans:

• To build highway 413 when there are more effective options for moving goods and services within the GTA,
• To import fracked natural gas from the United States to meet Ontario’s energy needs when local renewable energy can be provided more reliably and at less cost,
• To support the expansion of a Brampton-based waste burning facility that will become the largest in Canada, rather than implementing policies to reduce non-recyclable packaging and encouraging proper waste separation.

Jaipaul Massey-Singh, CEO Brampton Board of Trade spoke about the role and responsibility of businesses to protect the environment and reduce emissions that contribute to climate change.

He said that consumers can use their purchasing power to make businesses more environmentally responsible and that, when businesses become more environmentally conscious they do so at scale which truly does have a positive global impact.

Dr. Theresa Chan, Founding Dean of Toronto Metropolitan University’s School of Medicine and their Vice-President of Medical Affairs.

Dr. Chan spoke about the importance of working with the community in collaborations and partnerships for the betterment of health outcomes. TMU is engaging first year medical students in a community project (CAP), where teams of students collaborate with a community partner on a project that deeply affects community health. The team working with the Brampton Environmental Alliance is focusing on the health impacts of air quality in the environment.

BEA Environmental Awards

• Civic Leadership Awards
  • Rowena Santos, City and Regional Councillor Wards 1 & 5 for her work in championing various environmental causes and events throughout the city both as Councillor and as Brampton’s representative, both nationally and abroad
  • Graham McGregor, Brampton North MPP and Minister of Citizenship and Multiculturalism for his work advocating for funding Brampton’s wetlands restoration work
• Eco-citizen Award
  • Cindy Evans for her project leadership over the past 2 years working with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority as part of the Bramalea Sustainable Neighbourhoods Program
• Corporate Sustainability Award
  • Medtronic Canada for its work, collaborating with community organizations to educate its employees on the importance of environmental sustainability,
• Green Organization Award
  • People Against Littering for its tireless efforts in organizing clean up events to make Brampton the first litter-free city in Canada

BEA Business Meeting

David called the business meeting to order

• Approval of 2025 AGM minutes – moved by Steve Papagiannis, carried
• Election of Board of Directors:
  • Board Executive
    • David Laing – President,
    • Steve Papagiannis – Vice-President,
    • Harry Bridgemohan, Treasurer,
    • Dayle Laing, Secretary
  • Board Members
    • Amisha Moorjani,
    • Chaya Chengappa,
    • Ghazanfar Jawaid,
    • Gunjan Sharda,
    • Polly Thornham,
    • Sumit Sharda,
    • Yarim Hinojosa,
    • Rhythm Verma,
    • Gauravi Sani,
    • Jashan Gill,
    • Rajbalinder Ghatoura
  • Moved by Polly Thornham, carried
• Treasurer’s Report presented by Harry Bridgemohan
  • Harry indicated the BEA is in a strong cash position entering into 2026 with positive prospects for the coming year
  • Motion to approve the Treasurer’s Report – Dayle Laing, carried
• President’s Report
  • David provided an overview of what environmental sustainability in Brampton looks like over the coming years and how it fits within the City’s 2040 vision document, “A cultural Mosaic”. He spoke about the role of the BEA in making that vision become a reality, acting as a strong voice for advocacy and as a catalyst bringing together, individuals, groups, corporations and institutions for the greater good of the community.
  • BEA Priorities for 2026
    • Increase impact on local government policy through projects like ClimateFast,
    • Build on strategic relationships with other environmental groups, conservation authorities, educational institutions, professional organizations, and city and regional departments
    • Participate in collaborative projects including Bramalea SNAP, TMU CAP, the City’s One-Million Trees Program, BEA loves Pollinators project, and the Credit Valley Trail
    • Continue growing BEA’s reach and impact through increased social media, tabling opportunities and educational seminars and workshops
• The meeting was adjourned at 8:26pm followed by informal networking

The Youth!

The Certificate

2025 Year end Video

It’s hard for me not to take this personally. My wife Dayle and I started BikeBrampton 13 years ago to encourage the city to build an active transportation network that would offer a safe, convenient and relatively comfortable alternative to the car for short-distance trips. Until last week, it’s been slow but reasonably steady progress. Over the past decade or so, the city has created a subdepartment under planning for active transportation. It hired an active transportation specialist and supporting staff. An active transportation master plan was created and unanimously passed by Council in 2019. That plan outlined a connected network of pathways, sidewalks and bike lanes across the entire city that would be built out over 20 years.

The plan also outlined the compelling reasons why cycling must be an important element in the city’s long-term transportation strategy. The traffic demand management experts have done the calculations and determined we are in big trouble if the historical growth in the use of cars continues, particularly for single occupancy vehicles. As the city’s population tips over 1 million residents in the next few years, Brampton will not only run out of road space, it will run out of space to build roads unless a higher percentage of people choose transportation alternatives other than the personal automobile. Straight and simple. If we want to avoid traffic chaos and road related carnage both now and in the future, more people must choose transit, walking, cycling, and micro mobility for short-distance travel.

Encouraging people to walk, cycle or jump on transit starts with giving them the confidence that, if they choose a mode of travel other than the car, they can still get to their destinations, conveniently, and in relative safety and comfort. There are many aspects to what it takes to create this confidence. But table stakes is for the city to build a network that is as comprehensive as the existing road system while limiting interaction between motorists and vulnerable road users such as cyclists.

Sidewalks serve this purpose for pedestrians. They are physically separated from faster moving traffic and are reasonably comprehensive in allowing walkers to get from home to destinations that are maximum 1-2 km away. Adult cyclists cannot use sidewalks. For one thing it is illegal do so in Brampton. And sidewalks are not designed for bicycles travelling faster than about 12 kilometers an hour. Mixing pedestrians and fast-moving utilitarian cyclists is not a good idea. Safety becomes an issue on this type of facility the faster you go. For this reason, multi-use paths are also not a valid option for cyclists or e-scooters wanting to get somewhere quickly and conveniently.

Bicycles are allowed to use the road. But the speed variance between bicycles and cars leads to potential conflicts and safety issues. Depending on the speed and volume of traffic on the road, it also reduces the comfort level for cyclists meaning most people will not ride even if they want to.

Dedicated bicycle lanes provide a cost-effective and reasonably safe alternative. Installing a separated bicycle path in the boulevard can cost 5 to 50 times as much per kilometer compared to on-street bike lanes. And, bike lanes only need to be installed along certain roads of the network to provide key connectivity allowing cyclists to travel to virtually any part of the city in relative safety.

In 2020, just as COVID hit, the city introduced the “Streets for People” program which started in earnest to build out the network described in the active transportation master plan. Perhaps the most important connection in the plan is the east-west cycling corridor encompassing, Vodden, Howden, North Park, Central Parkway, and Cottrelle once the bridge across the Bayridge Valley is complete. This stretch of road midway between Queen and Bovaird runs almost the full width of the city. It uses collector roads that were historically “over-engineered” so that bike lanes could be used as a traffic calming measure to reduce speeding and aggressive driving behaviour. It connects the three major pathways that run north and south through Brampton’s rivers valleys. It also connects residential areas to literally hundreds of destinations, areas for recreation employment and commercial activities. This section of roadway is uniquely suited to act as the spine for active transportation across the city.

Unfortunately, change inevitably is met with resistance. Even though cycling usage has increased significantly in recent years, motorists still saw the bike lanes as being mostly empty. They became frustrated with the loss of road space for automobiles, There was particular frustration at intersections where there was no longer a dedicated lane for right-hand turners. With road construction on Williams and Dixie that encouraged more cut-through traffic along Howden, residents became increasingly upset. They demanded action

Last summer, Council directed staff to analyze several options. After conducting numerous public feedback sessions and reviewing the data, staff recommended an option that would maintain the bike lanes along most of the road section but move those lanes into the boulevard at the intersections allowing for dedicated right and left-hand turns for motorists. A cost-effective and reasonable compromise which would help alleviate resident concerns while still maintaining this key piece of infrastructure for cyclists.

Here is my frustration. With the exception of one, Council, fueled by the resident anger, determined they were not prepared to support this compromise, or any compromise for that matter. The only thing that would satisfy them was complete removal of this section of the Howden bike lanes, which threatens to render the active transportation master plan useless.

I started riding my bike primarily for environmental reasons. In Brampton, transportation represents the largest source of carbon emissions. I’m very concerned about climate change, (as should we all be). Dayle and I had taken the usual steps to reduce our carbon footprint, changing light-bulbs, increasing insulation, sealing doors and windows, etc. There are very few things that we as individuals can do to address the climate crisis. I was looking for more, and riding my bike to short-distance destinations seemed like a good way for me to help the planet while staying in shape at the same time.

Brampton has the potential to be bicycle friendly. We are a suburb yes, but we are also a city of close to a million people while enjoying extraordinary population growth. Most of our trips taken by car are less than 5km. Cycling changes the environmental fabric of the city. It allows us to grow up not out and in a healthier, less polluting way that connects to our communities and encourages support for local businesses.

It’s time we all decided what kind of city we want to live in, today and in the future. If you care about this issue, (and you should); if you care about your future and the future of your children, (and I’m sure you do), then write your councillors and tell them you support active transportation. Tell them you support bike lanes!

Do you believe in a cleaner, healthier, more environmentally sustainable Brampton?
Imagine a city where we can protect green spaces, reduce waste, promote healthier lifestyles, and work together on environmental solutions that matter?

Look no further, it’s…

Brampton Environmental Alliance!

 We want you to be a part of this initiative.
We are a community-wide network of people and organizations with a vision for Brampton to be a place that is environmentally, socially and economically resilient for everyone.

Why you should join

• Advocacy with Impact:
  Your voice contributes to a collective effort that advocates for key environmental priorities in our city, including clean water, zero waste, sustainable transportation, climate resiliency, and local biodiversity.
• Meaningful Events and Engagement :
  BEA organizes and supports community events and educational activities, from workshops and campaigns to local environmental celebrations, that raise awareness and bring people together
• Education and Shared Resources :
  Gain access to valuable environmental knowledge, tools, volunteer opportunities, and resources that will help you make even greater contributions locally
• Collaboration and Networking :
  Connections with like-minded residents, community groups, non-profits, and environmental leaders unlock new opportunities to learn, partner, and make change happen
• Grow your Reach:
  Whether you’re an individual, student, or organization, membership helps expand your capacity to impact Brampton’s sustainability journey through collective action

Your Membership Makes a Difference ,

• Add your voice to community-wide environmental advocacy campaigns
• Participate in shaping BEA priorities and actions
• Be part of a respected city-wide network that’s focused on driving real change
• Stay informed with newsletters and educational events
• Gain opportunities to volunteer
• Contribute to an organization that is 100% volunteer led and that contributes to the community on your behalf and on behalf of Brampton’s environmental sustainability

When we work together as a community, our impact grows stronger every day! Together we can:

1. Protect natural habitats and water resources
2. Promote sustainable living and community well-being
3. Build a legacy of environmental stewardship in Brampton

This is more than membership!! It’s your chance to be a part of the movement that’s shaping our future in the place where we live, work, and play.

 Join today!