Open Letter to the Councils of the City of Peterborough and Peterborough County

Request for Update on PCP Program and Municipal Climate Initiatives

Dear Members of the City of Peterborough Council and County of Peterborough Councils,

I am reaching out to request an update on the administration of the Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) Program and other related initiatives in both the City and County of Peterborough.

Since my initial presentation to City Council regarding concerns over the municipality’s partnership with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability), a great deal has transpired. It is important to recognize that FCM, once a voice for local governments, has increasingly become a conduit for implementing international policies at the municipal level. ICLEI itself was founded with the goal of restructuring human society at the local level, as explicitly stated in its founding document. Since 1994, FCM has worked alongside ICLEI to advance programs like the PCP Program, which both the city and county have participated in.

Key Developments Since My Last Presentation

I have closely followed local sustainability efforts over the past few years. I note that Sustainable Peterborough, the NGO that previously administered the PCP Program, is no longer funded for this role. Instead, this responsibility has been transferred to a consultant.

In Fall 2024, I presented to the County on this transition and submitted recommendations to both the City and County administrations. I now seek clarification on the following points:

1. Who is the consultant currently managing the program?

2. What is their specific scope of work?

3. Are they still administering the PCP program or similar milestone-based climate framework?

---

Municipal Budget Pressures & Priorities

Since this transition, we have witnessed significant financial pressures on the City and County of Peterborough. The OPP policing bill has created a substantial funding shortfall, leading City Council to cut almost every community program in order to cover these costs.

This raises serious concerns about municipal priorities. While the City and County continue to fund a climate program that is not required by federal, provincial, or international law, they are simultaneously cutting essential services that fall directly within their municipal mandate.

To be fair, I appreciate the recent efforts made to maintain and improve roadways and understand the necessity of responsible development and housing initiatives. However, I am deeply concerned about the City’s recent announcement regarding land expropriation to accommodate private developers, many of which are foreign corporations. The public will not be happy with this plan, and for good reason.

This situation has arisen as a direct consequence of UN-FCM-aligned “sustainable development” policies, which prioritize centralized, high-density urban expansion at the expense of local property rights and small-town growth. Instead of allowing development to occur organically through local investment and demand-driven growth, the City is allowing a top-down approach that:

• Drives population growth into urban centers, negatively impacting both city and county communities while inflating housing costs and straining infrastructure.

• Imposes restrictive “green” building codes, creating excessive barriers for the construction industry and increasing the cost of housing.

• Diverts municipal resources to excessive data collection and reporting, far beyond what is required at the provincial level, consuming funds that should be allocated to core municipal services.

• Funnels municipal decision-making through organizations like ICLEI, which then recommend costly fleet purchases and other infrastructure investments under the guise of “climate action.”

• Leads to land expropriation to benefit private developers, often foreign-owned corporations, at the expense of local property owners and taxpayers.

• Forces municipalities into debt through unnecessary climate programs, reducing their ability to fund essential services such as road maintenance, policing, and community development.

• Undermines local food security by encouraging land-use policies that push development onto farmland, while restricting agricultural expansion in the name of “carbon reduction.”

• Centralizes control over zoning and development, reducing municipal autonomy and giving more power to unelected bureaucracies and international organizations.

• Redirects tax dollars to climate-focused projects with no clear cost-benefit analysis, instead of addressing pressing local concerns like housing affordability, healthcare accessibility, and emergency services.

• Expands unelected oversight through sustainability consultants and NGOs, removing accountability from elected officials and distancing decision-making from residents.

These policies do not serve the interests of Peterborough and surrounding area residents. Instead, they prioritize global climate objectives at the expense of local affordability, property rights, and economic stability. It is time for City and County Council to reassess its commitments and focus on local needs first.

---

The CO₂ Question – Do These Programs Even Make Sense?

At its core, the CO₂ mitigation argument does not hold up to scrutiny when applied to Peterborough or any other Canadian municipality.

• CO₂ comprises only 0.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere, with human activity contributing approximately 4% of that amount.

• Canada contributes roughly 1.6% of global human CO₂ emissions, and Peterborough’s Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) accounts for just 0.34% of Canada’s population.

• This means Peterborough’s share of global human CO₂ emissions is approximately 0.000022%—a statistically insignificant amount.

• Additionally, Peterborough County contains extensive green spaces, forests, and wetlands, which act as carbon sinks, meaning the region absorbs more CO₂ than it emits.

Given this data, local CO₂ mitigation programs are impractical and unnecessary. The return on investment for reducing emissions in Peterborough is effectively zero when considering global atmospheric levels.

I fully support climate adaptation measures that strengthen infrastructure against extreme weather events, such as flood prevention, road maintenance, and disaster resilience planning. However, spending public funds on CO₂ mitigation strategies that offer no measurable local or global benefit is a misuse of municipal resources.

Instead of pursuing costly and ineffective CO₂ reduction programs, a more practical approach would focus on environmental stewardship—preserving green spaces, improving water quality, and managing waste effectively.

---

Key Questions That Must Be Answered

Given these concerns, I request that Council provide full transparency on the following:

• What is the total cost of these climate programs?

• Why, after 30 years, has the FCM not publicly disclosed a full breakdown of potential projects and costs per municipality?

• How can a municipality commit to a program without a clear financial roadmap?

Three Key Recommendations

1. Conduct a full cost analysis of past, present, and projected future expenses required to achieve “Net Zero by 2050” OR work with me to advocate for FCM to publicly disclose this information.

2. Commission a local emissions and sequestration report (with assistance from your GIS departments) to assess how much CO₂ our local ecosystems already absorb relative to what we emit.

3. Conduct a public survey to determine whether residents actually support PCP-style, data-driven climate action plans OR if they would prefer genuine environmental stewardship and climate adaptation initiatives instead.

Most climate surveys to date have steered public opinion toward a predetermined outcome, failing to offer alternative approaches such as nature-based environmental policies.

---

National & International Trends Toward Withdrawal

We are already seeing a shift away from these climate programs:

• Thorold, ON has withdrawn from the PCP Program.

• Tiny Township, ON has initiated a cost analysis.

• Renfrew County, ON has launched an emissions and sequestration study.

• Wheatland County, AB & Stettler County, AB have withdrawn from the FCM entirely, citing lack of rural representation.

• The Rural Municipalities of Saskatchewan (RMA) have passed resolutions stating that CO₂ is not a pollutant.

• Entire U.S. states such as Tennessee have begun making it illegal for municipalities to partner with ICLEI or similar organizations.

• United States Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement: On January 20, 2025, the United States' withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement for the second time.

---

Legal Considerations

As I stated in a presentation to City Council last year, Section 92 of the Canadian Constitution places municipalities under direct provincial jurisdiction, and municipal councils have a duty to uphold the Constitution.

There is no federal, provincial, or international law that mandates municipalities to participate in the Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) Program or any ICLEI-led initiatives. No level of government is requiring this participation—it is entirely voluntary.

However, what we are witnessing is a direct circumvention of provincial authority, as the federal government and an international organization (ICLEI) have made municipal funding (e.g., Green Municipal Fund - GMF) conditional on adopting global agendas. This means municipalities are being pressured into compliance not by law, but by financial incentives tied to federally controlled grants—grants that often come with long-term obligations and regulatory expectations that extend beyond their initial scope.

This practice raises serious legal and democratic concerns. Municipalities are not legally required to engage in these programs, yet they are being financially coerced into adopting policies that may not reflect local priorities or budgets.

It is critical that every municipal council in Canada re-evaluates its participation in these programs immediately.

Yes, there may be some short-term funding losses from withdrawing, but the long-term financial freedom gained will allow municipalities to properly allocate resources to essential services, such as infrastructure, emergency services, housing, and economic development—without external mandates dictating how funds must be spent.

By stepping away from these programs, councils retain control over municipal decision-making and can prioritize policies that directly serve their residents, rather than fulfilling global targets that have little relevance to local needs.

---

Motion for the City of Peterborough

Motion: Review and Transparency of Climate Initiatives and Spending

WHEREAS the City of Peterborough is currently participating in the Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) Program and other climate initiatives without a comprehensive financial analysis;

WHEREAS municipal resources are under increasing strain due to essential service funding pressures;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Peterborough:

1. Conduct a financial audit of all current and past spending related to the PCP Program, climate action initiatives, and associated consultant contracts.

2. Suspend any new financial commitments to the PCP Program or related initiatives until the audit is completed and reviewed.

3. Direct staff to compile a report on all obligations associated with PCP membership, including any long-term financial or policy commitments.

4. Request a full list of anticipated costs from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) for all projects associated with the PCP Program.

5. Assess whether ongoing participation in the PCP Program aligns with municipal priorities and financial capacity.

---

Motion for the County of Peterborough

Motion: Local Oversight of Climate and Sustainability Programs

WHEREAS the County of Peterborough has shifted the administration of climate programs from Sustainable Peterborough to a private consultant;

WHEREAS transparency and financial accountability are essential to responsible governance;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the County of Peterborough:

1. Identify and publicly disclose the consultant(s) currently managing climate programs, including their scope of work and contract terms.

2. Conduct a cost-benefit analysis of continued participation in the PCP Program and any similar initiatives.

3. Request an independent assessment of the County’s carbon sequestration capacity, using local environmental and GIS data to determine the necessity of CO₂ mitigation efforts.

4. Suspend new commitments or consultant contracts related to climate mitigation initiatives until a full financial review is completed.

5. Direct staff to compile a report outlining alternative environmental policies that focus on practical community-driven stewardship efforts.

---

Motion for Township Councils in Peterborough County

Motion: Local Authority Over Climate and Development Policies

WHEREAS municipal councils must ensure that policies and expenditures align with local priorities;

WHEREAS the costs and obligations of the PCP Program and similar climate initiatives require further review;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT [Township Name]:

1. Withdraw from the PCP Program and similar climate initiatives until full financial transparency and a cost-benefit analysis are completed by the County.

2. Cease providing municipal and community data to third-party organizations without council review and approval.

3. Direct staff to review all sustainability-related expenditures and commitments to ensure alignment with local needs and budget constraints.

4. Prioritize infrastructure and environmental initiatives that directly benefit the township, such as flood prevention, water conservation, and road maintenance.

---

I Am Here to Help

I remain committed to working with municipalities that want to prioritize local needs over global directives. I am available to assist with emissions and sequestration analysis, public engagement, and advocacy efforts.

I urge you to carefully consider these concerns and take action before committing further public funds to programs that are not in the best interest of Peterborough and County residents.

Sincerely,
Maggie Braun
Founder, KICLEI Canada
Resident, Peterborough Ward 4

Diploma in Ecosystems Management | Civic Advocate