Empowering Canadian Councils to Reclaim Local Control

Welcome to our page dedicated to empowering communities and councils to withdraw from the Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) program—the leading program advancing the United Nations’ Agenda 21 in Canadian municipalities. Managed by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) in partnership with the UN’s ICLEI, the PCP program implements global goals at the local level.

Many are surprised to learn that the FCM, a body meant to represent Canadian municipalities, helped draft Agenda 21, a global framework developed to centralize environmental, social, and economic governance worldwide.

Why This Matters and How Local Action Makes a Difference

As concerns grow about the influence of global agendas, few realize that these policies are being implemented in our local councils through programs like PCP. The good news? PCP is voluntary, and many councils are unaware of the real impacts on privacy, local autonomy, and community development. Canada’s vast geography and unique rural and urban needs make one-size-fits-all policies ineffective. But rather than driving to Ottawa to challenge these policies, Canadians can engage locally, where meaningful change is most possible.

We’ve demonstrated that councils can indeed withdraw from PCP. In Thorold, Ontario, our first attempt at withdrawal was successful and proved that local civic engagement has the power to halt international directives from advancing in our communities. This campaign calls on Canadians nationwide to advocate for community-centered governance and join us in challenging the UN-driven PCP program at the local level.

Introduction to the PCP Program Report

This overview examines the challenges Canadian municipalities face under the Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) program, influenced by UN sustainability frameworks like Agenda 21. While environmental protection remains essential, this report highlights critical issues tied to PCP’s goals that may clash with local autonomy, financial priorities, and community-specific needs.

Key Findings

  • Privacy and Data Concerns: The PCP mandates extensive data collection on energy and waste, raising concerns about data security and privacy, particularly with ICLEI’s partnerships with corporate funders like Google and BlackRock.

  • Financial Impact: PCP’s initiatives add financial strain on municipalities, with costly requirements like electric vehicle fleets, green building standards, and energy audits, which could lead to increased taxes or cuts to essential services.

  • Local Autonomy Risks: PCP’s global targets may interfere with local governance, aligning more with international agendas than community-specific needs. This shift challenges local decision-making power and risks undermining Canada’s jurisdictional autonomy.

  • Sector-Specific Impacts: The program influences critical sectors:

    • Housing and Construction: Rising costs from green standards exacerbate Canada’s housing crisis.

    • Agriculture: Land use restrictions affect farmers’ control and local food security.

    • Energy Security: Net-zero targets could undermine energy affordability, vital in Canada’s vast, cold climate.

Real-World Example

  • Edmonton, Alberta: Edmonton invested $60 million in electric buses only to face severe setbacks after the bus manufacturer declared bankruptcy, highlighting the need for adaptable, cost-effective local policies.

Alternative Recommendations

The report suggests that municipalities withdraw from the PCP program and adopt locally-driven environmental initiatives, that prioritize community well-being and are more adaptable to local needs.

For a detailed examination, including case studies and alternative strategies, read the full report.