WITHDRAWING FROM THE FEDERATION OF CANADIAN MUNICIPALITIES: A PATH TO RURAL AUTONOMY

A Report Package for Rural Municipalities

Prepared by

KICLEI Canada
info@kiclei.ca

Date

February 18, 2025

Included Reports

1. Why Small and Rural Municipalities Should Withdraw from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM)

2. How FCM Policies Redirect Growth Away from Rural Communities

3. The Impact of UN Land-Use Policies on Property Rights and Local Autonomy

Purpose

This report package outlines the consequences of FCM membership for small and rural municipalities and provides a framework for withdrawal. By reclaiming local governance and redirecting resources toward community-driven initiatives, municipalities can prioritize policies that support their residents rather than international sustainability mandates.

Executive Summary

This report package presents a critical analysis of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and its impact on small and rural municipalities. While the FCM was initially established to advocate for local governments, its shift toward enforcing United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has led to policies that disproportionately favor urban development, restrict rural growth, and erode local decision-making power. These reports outline the consequences of FCM membership and provide a roadmap for rural municipalities to reclaim governance by withdrawing from the organization.

Key Findings

1. FCM’s Alignment with Global Agendas Limits Rural Autonomy

• Since the 1990s, the FCM has increasingly aligned with UN-driven sustainability mandates, imposing land-use restrictions that hinder economic development in rural areas.

• Federal funding is now contingent upon compliance with these mandates, forcing municipalities to prioritize global climate goals over local needs.

2. The Economic Consequences of FCM Membership for Rural Communities

• Rural municipalities face population decline as restrictive land-use policies force residents and businesses to relocate to urban centers.

• Shrinking tax bases lead to increased property taxes, reduced public services, and economic stagnation.

• Infrastructure investments overwhelmingly favor high-density urban areas, leaving rural communities underfunded and struggling to maintain essential services.

3. How FCM Policies Undermine Local Governance and Property Rights

• FCM-aligned land-use regulations restrict private property development, discourage local business expansion, and facilitate land control by corporate and government entities.

• Sustainability mandates impose a centralized planning model that overrides local decision-making and reduces municipal autonomy.

• Rural landowners are facing increasing barriers to using their property as they see fit, leading to economic hardship and forced displacement.

4. Growing Support for a Coordinated Rural Withdrawal from FCM

• Municipalities like Wheatland County and the County of Stettler No. 6 have already withdrawn from the FCM, recognizing the detrimental impact of its policies.

• • A unified withdrawal effort would enable rural communities to establish independent funding models, advocate for policies that reflect their priorities, and restore self-governance.

Purpose

This report presents the case for rural municipalities to reconsider their membership in the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM). While originally founded to advocate for local governments, the FCM shifted its priorities in the 1990s to align with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), leading to policies that disproportionately favor urban growth at the expense of rural communities.

FCM membership now requires compliance with sustainability mandates to access federal funding, effectively tying municipal governance to global development goals that many local councils never signed up for. This report outlines how FCM policies restrict rural growth, shrink local tax bases, and limit municipal autonomy—making withdrawal a necessary step for small municipalities to regain control over their own governance.

1. FCM’s Shift in the 1990s: From Local Advocacy to UN Sustainable Development Goals

• Before the 1990s, the FCM functioned as a municipal advocacy body, representing cities and towns at the federal level.

• In the 1990s, the FCM realigned its focus to implement UN-driven sustainability mandates, particularly Agenda 21 and later the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

• These frameworks promote a top-down approach to land-use planning, discouraging organic rural growth in favor of high-density urbanization and centralized development.

• Federal funding is now linked to these mandates through programs like the Green Municipal Fund (GMF), meaning municipalities must comply with sustainability directives to receive funding.

The result is that the FCM no longer serves as a neutral municipal association—it is now an enforcer of international sustainability goals that often contradict the needs of small and rural municipalities.

2. How FCM Policies Restrict Rural Growth

A. Land-Use Restrictions Limit Economic Development

• Sustainable development policies discourage rural expansion, labeling it as “urban sprawl.”

• Environmental zoning regulations prevent housing development, farm expansion, and new business growth in rural areas.

• Municipalities are pressured into restricting land use to align with sustainability goals, even when these policies harm the local economy.

The result is less local development, fewer job opportunities, and shrinking tax bases.

B. Population Decline Leads to Economic Hardship

• As FCM policies limit growth, residents are forced to migrate to urban centers where funding and jobs are concentrated.

• With fewer taxpayers, municipalities face higher property taxes, fewer public services, and struggling local economies.

• Schools, hospitals, and emergency services in rural areas become harder to sustain.

The result is rural towns experiencing population loss, tax increases, and declining public services, creating a cycle of economic stagnation.

3. The Only Way to Access Federal Funding is Through Compliance with UN Mandates

• The Green Municipal Fund (GMF) is the primary funding program for municipalities—but it requires compliance with UN sustainable development policies.

• Municipalities must adopt climate action plans, net-zero commitments, and urban-focused growth strategies to qualify for funding.

• This forces councils to implement international sustainability policies, not because they benefit local communities, but because it’s the only way to receive federal support.

The result is that small municipalities are left with a choice: comply with global sustainability directives or struggle without funding.

4. Loss of Local Autonomy

• FCM membership has become a means of enforcing UN policies at the municipal level, bypassing direct community decision-making.

• Councils must align zoning laws, taxation policies, and infrastructure priorities with global development goals instead of tailoring policies to local needs.

• Over time, this erodes the ability of small towns to govern themselves without external influence.

The result is that instead of being accountable to their constituents, councils are increasingly accountable to sustainability mandates dictated by international organizations.

5. Growing Support for a Unified Rural Stance Against FCM Membership

• Wheatland County was the first municipality to withdraw and has called for a unified stance among rural municipalities to collectively withdraw from the FCM.

• The County of Stettler No. 6 has since followed, demonstrating that other councils are seeing the same patterns of urban favoritism and loss of local autonomy.

• A coordinated withdrawal would increase negotiating power, allowing rural municipalities to collaborate on alternative funding models and advocacy efforts that better serve their communities.

By working together, rural councils can create a strong, independent network that prioritizes local governance without relying on international sustainability directives.

Conclusion: Why Municipalities Should Withdraw from the FCM

• The FCM no longer represents rural municipalities—it implements UN-driven policies that limit rural growth and erode local autonomy.

• Membership fees and compliance costs can be redirected toward local initiatives.

• Withdrawing from the FCM restores municipal decision-making and prevents unnecessary policy constraints.

Recommendation:

1. Review and reconsider our municipality’s membership in the FCM.

2. Formally withdraw from the FCM.

3. Redirect funds and resources toward local initiatives that directly benefit our community.

By taking these steps, municipalities can reclaim local control, reinvest in their own communities, and ensure their governance is shaped by local needs—not international directives.

For assistance with the withdrawal process, contact KICLEI Canada at info@kiclei.ca.

Next Steps

• Report 2: How FCM Policies Redirect Growth Away from Rural Communities

• Report 3: The Impact of UN Land-Use Policies on Property Rights and Local Autonomy

Purpose

This report outlines how the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) has shifted from supporting balanced municipal development to actively redirecting population growth away from rural areas toward urban centers. As a result, rural communities face economic decline, shrinking tax bases, and service cutbacks, while urban centers receive disproportionate investment and infrastructure expansion.

This process is not accidental—it is the direct outcome of FCM-aligned policies, particularly those rooted in United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which prioritize high-density urbanization while restricting rural growth.

This report highlights how these policies disadvantage rural municipalities, increasing their dependence on external funding and reducing their ability to govern effectively.

1. FCM’s Agenda: Promoting Urban Growth Over Rural Sustainability

• The FCM actively discourages rural expansion by labeling it “urban sprawl” while incentivizing high-density urban development.

• Land-use policies tied to sustainability goals prevent rural communities from growing naturally—restricting housing development, discouraging business expansion, and limiting infrastructure upgrades.

• Federal funding for municipalities is now primarily allocated to high-density projects in urban centers, leaving rural areas underfunded and struggling to maintain essential services.

The result is a deliberate population shift—rural residents are forced to relocate to urban areas due to economic pressures, loss of services, and lack of opportunities.

2. The Shrinking Rural Tax Base and Economic Decline

A. Fewer Residents, Higher Taxes

• As people leave rural communities, the municipal tax base shrinks, forcing councils to increase property taxes on remaining residents just to maintain basic services.

• Small businesses struggle with reduced local spending power, leading to closures and further economic stagnation.

B. Service Cutbacks and Infrastructure Neglect

• Fewer residents mean schools, hospitals, and emergency services receive less funding—making rural areas even less attractive to families and businesses.

• Road maintenance, utilities, and essential infrastructure projects get delayed or canceled, while urban areas receive continuous federal and provincial investment.

The result is a cycle of decline—rural communities become less viable over time, while cities grow at their expense.

3. FCM and the Green Municipal Fund: Funding Tied to Urban-Centric Policies

• Federal funding to municipalities through the Green Municipal Fund (GMF) is tied to compliance with sustainable development goals, which overwhelmingly favor urbanization.

• Municipalities must commit to high-density planning, net-zero initiatives, and other urban-oriented policies to qualify for financial assistance.

• Rural communities that do not comply are left without funding for critical infrastructure and development projects.

This effectively forces rural councils to adopt policies that do not align with their long-term economic needs just to access financial support.

4. The Impact on Local Decision-Making

• Instead of councils determining their own development priorities, they are pressured into aligning with national and global sustainability targets.

• Funding conditions create a governance model where local elected officials lose control over land use, taxation, and development planning.

• Rural communities must now operate within an urban-focused framework, even when these policies harm their local economy.

5. The Need for a Unified Rural Response

• Wheatland County and the County of Stettler No. 6 have taken a stand by withdrawing from the FCM.

• These municipalities recognize that rural areas need independent advocacy, funding solutions, and decision-making power to sustain themselves.

• A coordinated withdrawal of rural municipalities would strengthen local governance and funding negotiations, creating a collective voice for rural interests.

Conclusion: Why Rural Municipalities Should Withdraw from the FCM

• FCM policies are systematically redirecting growth, resources, and funding away from rural areas toward urban centers.

• Remaining in the FCM forces rural municipalities to operate under policies that do not serve their best interests.

• Withdrawing allows councils to reclaim control over local development, reinvest tax dollars into their own communities, and advocate for alternative funding solutions.

Recommendation:

1. Review and reconsider our municipality’s membership in the FCM.

2. Formally withdraw from the FCM and join other rural councils in developing independent advocacy and funding alternatives.

3. Redirect funds and resources toward infrastructure, businesses, and community projects that directly support local residents.

For assistance with the withdrawal process, contact KICLEI Canada at info@kiclei.ca.

Next Steps

• Report 3: The Impact of UN Land-Use Policies on Property Rights and Local Autonomy

Purpose

This report examines how United Nations-aligned land-use policies, as implemented through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), are eroding property rights and diminishing local autonomy. While sustainable development policies claim to support environmental stewardship, their real-world implementation often leads to excessive government control over land use, restrictions on private property, and the displacement of rural populations.

FCM-aligned policies promote a model where land is treated as a collective asset rather than a privately owned resource, limiting the ability of individuals and municipalities to make independent decisions about development. These policies discourage private ownership, concentrate land control in the hands of governments and large corporate interests, and undermine local governance in favor of centralized planning.

1. UN Sustainable Development and the Shift Toward Public Land Control

• UN frameworks, particularly Agenda 21 and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), promote a shift away from private landownership toward government-managed land use.

• FCM policies align with these goals by encouraging municipalities to adopt restrictive zoning laws, limit private land development, and prioritize conservation over economic viability.

• In many cases, sustainability policies are used to justify land expropriation or restrictive land-use regulations that reduce the value and usability of private property.

The result is an increasing loss of control for property owners, as decision-making is centralized and subject to international sustainability mandates rather than local priorities.

2. Restrictions on Private Land Use and Development

A. Zoning Laws and Land-Use Regulations

• FCM-backed sustainability initiatives encourage strict zoning laws that prevent rural property owners from subdividing or developing their land.

• Land-use restrictions often prohibit the construction of additional housing, limiting local economic development and driving population decline.

• Alternative housing options, such as tiny homes and modular developments, are frequently blocked due to outdated zoning regulations aligned with sustainability goals.

B. Agricultural Land and Rural Business Limitations

• Rural landowners face increasing challenges when trying to repurpose agricultural land for housing, small businesses, or alternative uses.

• Land conservation policies, while framed as environmental protections, often make it difficult for farmers and small business owners to fully utilize their property.

• These restrictions lead to a decline in rural economic activity and force property owners to sell their land, often to large corporate interests or foreign investors.

3. The Role of FCM in Facilitating Corporate and Government Land Control

• As private land ownership becomes more difficult, corporate and foreign investors take advantage of land restrictions to consolidate property holdings.

• Governments and large real estate entities benefit from land-use restrictions by acquiring land at lower costs due to regulatory limitations on private development.

• FCM policies, rather than empowering rural communities, facilitate a system where land control shifts from local residents to centralized entities that prioritize high-density urbanization over rural self-sufficiency.

The result is a loss of local decision-making power, as land-use policies favor corporate investment and government oversight rather than community-driven development.

4. The Connection Between Land-Use Restrictions and Population Displacement

• As rural land-use regulations tighten, more residents are forced to relocate to urban centers where development is actively encouraged.

• Higher property taxes, increasing costs of compliance, and limited job opportunities in rural areas push families toward cities, contributing to the decline of small communities.

• Urban densification policies create a cycle where displaced rural populations move to cities with inadequate housing availability, leading to rising housing costs and overcrowding.

Instead of preserving local communities, these policies accelerate rural decline and place further strain on urban infrastructure.

5. The Need for Local Decision-Making and Property Rights Protections

• Municipalities should prioritize policies that protect private property rights while allowing for responsible development that meets local needs.

• Withdrawing from FCM allows councils to adopt land-use policies that support rural economic sustainability rather than external sustainability mandates.

• A collaborative network of rural municipalities can advocate for land-use policies that respect private ownership and promote balanced growth.

Conclusion: Why Rural Municipalities Must Reassert Control Over Land-Use Policies

• FCM-aligned land-use policies restrict private property rights, discourage local development, and facilitate land consolidation by corporate and government entities.

• The increasing centralization of land control undermines local autonomy and weakens rural communities, making them dependent on external decision-makers.

• By withdrawing from the FCM, municipalities can reclaim control over their land-use policies and ensure that development decisions are made in the best interests of their residents.

Recommendation:

1. Review and reconsider our municipality’s participation in FCM-driven land-use programs.

2. Formally withdraw from the FCM to restore local control over zoning, development, and property rights.

3. Establish partnerships with other rural municipalities to develop independent land-use policies that prioritize community needs over external mandates.

For assistance with the withdrawal process, contact KICLEI Canada at info@kiclei.ca.

Next Steps

• Coordinate with other municipalities that have withdrawn from the FCM.

• Develop a framework for rural land-use policies that promote private property rights and local decision-making.

• Engage residents in discussions about responsible development that benefits the local community.

Resolution for Council to Withdraw from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM)

Purpose

This resolution is presented to formally withdraw [Municipality Name] from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) based on the findings outlined in the three reports submitted regarding the impact of FCM policies on rural municipalities.

FCM's alignment with international sustainability mandates has led to policies that:

• Redirect population growth away from rural areas toward urban centers.

• Restrict private property rights and limit local land-use decision-making.

• Tie federal funding to compliance with urban-focused sustainable development goals.

• Weaken municipal autonomy by enforcing external governance frameworks.

Given these concerns, [Municipality Name] seeks to regain control over local governance, economic development, and land-use policies by withdrawing from FCM membership.

WHEREAS the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has shifted its focus from municipal advocacy to the promotion of United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), prioritizing urban densification over rural sustainability;

WHEREAS FCM policies systematically disadvantage rural municipalities by restricting local development, shrinking tax bases, and directing infrastructure and housing funding toward high-density urban areas;

WHEREAS municipal land-use policies should be determined by locally elected officials who understand the unique needs of their communities, rather than by international directives that limit rural growth and economic opportunities;

WHEREAS the Green Municipal Fund and other federal funding streams require compliance with FCM-aligned sustainability mandates, leaving municipalities with little choice but to adopt policies that do not serve their best interests;

WHEREAS Wheatland County and the County of Stettler No. 6 have formally withdrawn from FCM and called for a unified stance among rural municipalities to reclaim local decision-making and develop independent advocacy and funding alternatives;

BE IT RESOLVED that [Municipality Name] formally withdraw from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, effective immediately, and notify FCM of this decision in writing;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that [Municipality Name] reallocate former FCM membership fees and associated resources to initiatives that directly benefit local infrastructure, economic development, and community sustainability;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that [Municipality Name] collaborate with other rural municipalities that have withdrawn from FCM to develop independent networks for advocacy and funding solutions that prioritize the needs of rural communities;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the provincial rural municipal association, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, and neighboring councils to encourage further discussion on the impacts of FCM policies and the benefits of alternative municipal governance structures.

For assistance with the withdrawal process, contact KICLEI Canada at info@kiclei.ca.

Template Withdrawal Letter for Councils

[Municipality Letterhead]
[Date]

Ms. Rebecca Bligh, President
Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM)
24 Clarence Street
Ottawa, ON K1N 5P3

Subject: Non-Renewal of Membership for [Insert Year]

Dear Ms. Bligh,

The [Insert Municipality Name] Council formally notifies the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) of our decision not to renew our membership for the [Insert Year] fiscal year.

This decision reflects our concern that the FCM no longer adequately represents the distinct priorities and challenges of rural municipalities.

Our community values direct, practical solutions that support local economic development, infrastructure, and genuine environmental stewardship. We believe that current FCM programs disproportionately focus on urban issues and international agendas, leaving rural municipalities without meaningful representation.

We encourage the FCM to reconsider how it serves rural communities. While we are withdrawing, we remain open to future engagement should the FCM return to advocating effectively for all Canadian municipalities.

Sincerely,
[Name]
[Title]
[Municipality Name]
[Contact Information]

CC:

• Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA)

• Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities (SARM)

• Association of Manitoba Municipalities (AMM)

• Rural Ontario Municipal Association (ROMA)

• Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM)

• Fédération Québécoise des Municipalités (FQM)

• Nova Scotia Federation of Municipalities (NSFM)

• Union of the Municipalities of New Brunswick (UMNB)

• Federation of PEI Municipalities (FPEIM)

• Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador (MNL)

Email Template for Sending FCM Report and Recommendations to Councils:

Subject: Reconsideration of FCM Membership

Dear [Mayor/Councillor's Name],

I am writing on behalf of concerned residents in [Municipality Name] to share an important report regarding the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and its relevance to rural municipalities.

The attached report highlights how the FCM has shifted its focus toward urban-centric programs and international agendas that may not align with the unique needs of rural communities.

Recently, both Wheatland County and the County of Stettler No. 6 formally withdrew from the FCM, citing concerns over representation, funding priorities, and policy direction. Their decisions reflect a growing movement among rural municipalities that question the value of continued membership. You can review their withdrawal decisions here: [Wheatland & Stettler County Notices of Non-Renewal in FCM]

We respectfully request that council review the attached report and consider withdrawing from the FCM. A template letter to facilitate this process is also attached for your convenience.

I would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you to discuss these concerns further. KICLEI Canada is available to provide support throughout this process and can be reached at info@kiclei.ca.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]
[Your Contact Information]
[Municipality Name]

Attachment Includes:

• FCM Withdrawal Report

• Template Withdrawal Letter

Petition for Withdrawal from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM)

We, the undersigned residents of [Municipality Name], respectfully request that the [Municipality Name] Council reconsider its membership in the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) due to its policies that restrict rural growth and direct resources toward urban centers.

Reasons for Withdrawal:

• FCM policies actively limit growth in small and rural municipalities, shrinking our population and tax base while encouraging development in urban centers.

• Restrictive land-use policies prevent expansion, discourage local investment, and undermine economic opportunities for rural businesses and landowners.

• FCM programs impose costly compliance measures on municipalities while delivering little direct benefit to rural communities.

• Membership fees and associated costs could be better invested in local initiatives that directly benefit our residents rather than supporting urban-centric policies.

We call upon the [Municipality Name] Council to:

1. Review its current membership in the FCM.

2. Consider formally withdrawing from the FCM.

3. Redirect membership funds to support local initiatives that strengthen our community’s economy, services, and growth.

ntroduction

Good [morning/afternoon/evening], Mayor [Insert Name], Members of Council,

My name is [Your Name], and I am a resident of [Your Municipality]. I am here today to speak on behalf of concerned residents regarding our municipality's membership in the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and to request that council review our involvement, consider withdrawal, and redirect our resources toward initiatives that better serve local priorities.

In recent months, rural and small municipalities across Canada have begun to withdraw from the FCM, including Wheatland County and the County of Stettler No. 6. Their decision reflects growing concerns that the FCM no longer represents local governments, but instead serves as a vehicle for implementing the UN’s Sustainable Development model—one that actively restricts rural growth, redirects population toward high-density urban centers, and erodes local autonomy.

I am submitting three reports that provide a detailed analysis of these concerns, along with a petition signed by [Insert Number] residents who support our withdrawal from the FCM.

Today, I want to highlight the key issues that this council must consider.

1. The FCM No Longer Represents Local Governments—It Represents the UN Sustainable Development Model

• Prior to the 1990s, the FCM was focused on representing municipalities and advocating for local government interests at the federal level.

• However, in the 1990s, the FCM shifted its priorities to align with the UN’s Sustainable Development Agenda, specifically Agenda 21 and later, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

• These frameworks promote a top-down approach to land-use planning, discouraging organic rural growth in favor of high-density urbanization and centralized development.

• The FCM no longer prioritizes local autonomy and economic sustainability for small communities—instead, it acts as a conduit for implementing international sustainability mandates that are reshaping the landscape of Canada without the explicit consent of most Canadians.

Many of us supported environmental stewardship with the belief that it would empower us to protect and manage our own land. Instead, the policies we see today are taking people off the land and forcing population growth into urban centers, leaving rural communities struggling to survive.

2. FCM Policies Actively Restrict Growth in Small and Rural Municipalities

• The UN’s sustainability model discourages rural expansion, labeling it as “urban sprawl” while promoting policies that:

  • Limit land development in rural areas through environmental zoning laws.

  • Prevent new housing developments by imposing strict land-use regulations.

  • Push growth into cities instead of allowing rural communities to expand naturally.

• These policies reduce the tax base of small municipalities, leading to:

  • Higher property taxes on remaining residents.

  • Less funding for schools, hospitals, and infrastructure.

  • Service cutbacks that make rural communities even less attractive for families and businesses.

The result? Instead of strengthening rural communities, FCM policies actively shrink them, making it harder for people to live and work in the places they call home.

3. The Only Path to Federal Funding Is Through Compliance With UN-Directed Programs

• Many municipalities rely on federal funding to maintain infrastructure, upgrade services, and build local capacity.

• However, the only federal funding stream available to municipalities through the FCM is the Green Municipal Fund (GMF)—a fund that is explicitly tied to compliance with UN sustainable development mandates.

• In order to access these funds, municipalities must:

  • Adopt climate action plans and net-zero commitments that impose expensive regulatory burdens.

  • Implement high-density, urban-style development plans, limiting rural expansion.

  • Align municipal governance with UN sustainability goals, reducing local control over land use and economic policy.

This means that municipalities are being forced to adopt international sustainability policies, not because they serve local interests, but because it’s the only way to receive federal funding.

This is not how Canada’s federal-municipal relationship was originally designed, and it is not what many local councils signed up for when joining the FCM.

4. Redirecting Population Growth to Urban Centers

• The FCM’s alignment with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals prioritizes high-density urban housing over rural development.

• This means:

  • Funding for infrastructure, housing, and services is increasingly directed toward cities, not rural areas.

  • Development restrictions prevent small municipalities from growing, forcing younger generations to leave in search of opportunities elsewhere.

  • The local economy weakens, and the tax base declines, making it even harder for rural municipalities to sustain themselves.

If we are being asked to adopt sustainability policies, shouldn’t they be designed to sustain rural communities, not dismantle them?

5. The Erosion of Local Decision-Making

• By embedding international sustainability goals into municipal governance, the FCM limits the ability of locally elected officials to make decisions that are best for their own communities.

• Instead of councils determining what works for their residents, we are being pressured to align with a development model that prioritizes corporate and foreign investment interests over small-town prosperity.

• Many of these policies are introduced under the guise of voluntary participation—but in reality, once municipalities sign onto FCM programs, they are expected to comply with sustainability mandates to receive federal and provincial funding.

We must ask ourselves: Who benefits from these policies? Local residents, or outside interests looking to reshape our communities according to a global agenda?

Community Support for FCM Withdrawal

• Residents of [Municipality Name] are deeply concerned about these issues.

• I am presenting a petition signed by [Insert Number] residents, calling for council to reconsider our FCM membership.

• This petition demonstrates that:
  ✔ Residents recognize the negative impact of FCM policies on rural growth.
  ✔ They want tax dollars reinvested in local services, not urban-centric programs.
  ✔ They support local decision-making over external mandates.

Request to Council

In light of these concerns, I am respectfully requesting that [Municipality Name] Council:

1️⃣ Review our municipality’s current membership in the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.
2️⃣ Consider formally withdrawing from the FCM.
3️⃣ Redirect membership fees and related funds toward local programs that better serve the needs of our community, our residents, and our local economy.

To assist with this process, I am submitting:
📄 Three detailed reports outlining the impact of FCM policies on rural municipalities.
📜 A template withdrawal letter for council’s consideration.
📝 The petition signed by residents in support of this request.

Additionally, I am available to support council in reviewing these materials and can provide further information as needed.

Closing Statement

✔ The FCM no longer represents rural municipalities—it represents a global sustainability model that prioritizes urban densification and centralized control.
✔ Instead of supporting environmental stewardship that allows us to care for our land, these policies remove people from the land and force them into cities.
✔ Federal funding should not be conditional on the adoption of international policies that restrict our ability to govern ourselves.
✔ Local decision-making must be protected, and rural communities must be given the ability to determine their own future.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response.