A Grassroots Win in Waterloo Region—How You Can Do the Same in Your Community
A Grassroots Win in Waterloo Region—How You Can Do the Same in Your Community
By Maggie Braun
When we talk about real civic engagement, Peter McFadden’s recent delegation to the Region of Waterloo’s budget meeting is a prime example of how citizens can hold their councils accountable and demand transparency on costly voluntary programs like the ICLEI Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) program.
Peter’s delegation wasn’t just about asking tough questions—it was about informing decision-makers, sparking dialogue, and setting the stage for change. And it worked. One councillor asked for more information. That may seem small, but in the world of municipal politics, even one councillor’s curiosity can shift the conversation and force the council to take a second look at policies they may have simply rubber-stamped before.
What We Can Learn from This Win
Providing Information for Decision-Making is Key
This is not just a strategy—it’s the official framework councils were meant to follow. The FCM’s 1994 Municipal Primer on implementing Local Agenda 21 emphasized that providing information for decision-making is essential. Yet for years, municipalities have signed onto programs like PCP without full disclosure of costs, obligations, or the long-term consequences. When confronted with the facts, councils have a duty to investigate further.The Public Has a Right to Know Where Their Money Goes
Despite 30 years of operation, no participating municipality has conducted a full financial review of PCP-related expenditures. In 2024, Tiny Township became the first to vote for a financial audit, yet FCM admitted they do not know the total cost of participation. This is why delegations matter. No one in power is keeping track. We must demand transparency.One Councillor Asking for More Information is a Win
When Councillor Foxton asked for more details following Peter’s presentation, that wasn’t just a polite gesture—it was an opening. It means council is now obligated to consider the financial implications. It means the topic has moved from public comment to internal discussion. It’s now on the record and the public can follow up.
Our Next Steps & How You Can Get Involved
Following the delegation, we took three immediate actions:
Sent a detailed report to the Region of Waterloo council outlining the financial, administrative, and governance concerns associated with the PCP program.
Issued a press release to inform the public and ensure the issue remains visible.
Prepared counterarguments to the common sales pitches councils will hear in defense of PCP and similar programs.
Debunking the Sales Pitch
If you speak up at your own local council, here are the common rebuttals you will hear—and how to respond:
“It’s Free!” → Nothing is free. The costs of data collection, action plan development, and implementation are hidden, but they exist. Over $14M - $211M in spending has been documented in some municipalities.
“It Helps with Mandatory Provincial Reporting” → The PCP program drastically expands reporting requirements beyond what is required by law, adding unnecessary administrative burdens.
“We Already Invested in It, We Can’t Stop Now” → This is the sunk cost fallacy. Councils are not legally required to continue and can leave at any time.
“We Need to Meet Net Zero” → Municipalities are not signatories to the Paris Agreement, and Canada is a net carbon sink. Municipal CO₂ reductions have no measurable impact on global climate but huge financial impacts on local budgets.
“ICLEI is Just a Support Network” → ICLEI is funded by the UN and Google, collects data from municipalities, and then funnels them to ICLEI-affiliated vendors. This is a marketing scheme, not a neutral support system.
Now It’s Your Turn
Peter McFadden’s advocacy proves that one well-prepared delegation can start a ripple effect.
If your municipality is participating in the PCP program—or any other voluntary UN-aligned sustainability initiative—now is the time to act.
Attend a council meeting. Find out where your local government stands.
Request a financial audit. Demand full disclosure of all spending tied to PCP or similar programs.
Send a delegation. Inform your council that they can withdraw at any time.
Share this article. The more people who push for transparency, the more councils will be forced to listen.
We’ve made our full report available to Waterloo Region Council and will continue to track developments. Watch Peter’s five-minute clip below to see how this was done and get inspired to do the same in your community.
Together, we can restore local decision-making, demand accountability, and ensure tax dollars are spent where they truly matter—on real community needs.
For more information, visit KICLEI CANADA or contact info@kiclei.ca.
Speech by Peter McFadden – Kitchener Council Meeting on the 2025 Budget
Good evening, Chair Redmond and members of council.
My name is Peter McFadden. I've proudly called Kitchener home for 43 years, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you tonight as we address our region's 2025 budget challenges.
I want to address a key issue—our region’s voluntary participation in the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and ICLEI Canada’s Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) program.
While the program is promoted as free, the truth is that it comes with significant hidden costs, and it is council’s responsibility to determine just how much these costs affect us.
The PCP program requires our municipality to collect extensive data on community and municipal operations, which is then forwarded to ICLEI. This process connects us with affiliated product suppliers, a process that many may see as more of a marketing scheme than a genuine environmental initiative.
This often results in costly recommendations being added to our agenda—whether it’s:
New staffing
Expensive equipment like EV buses and charging stations
Sweeping initiatives such as smart city technologies and urban densification
These costs add up, and they are a direct consequence of voluntarily participating in this program.
The Hidden Costs of the PCP Program
There are significant costs associated with meeting the program’s requirements. For example:
Establishing a baseline data inventory, setting reduction targets, and developing a local action plan could cost between $35,000 and $175,000.
Implementing that plan, including investments in municipal fleet upgrades, EV charging stations, municipal building upgrades, smart city technology, circular economy initiatives, the 15-minute city model, active transportation networks, and urban densification, could cost between $14 million and $211 million.
Monitoring and tracking progress each year to hand over our data to ICLEI could cost between $10,000 and $50,000 annually.
The Bottom Line
Net Zero initiatives are NOT mandatory for Canadian municipalities.
This program costs money, and the council must:
Review all expenditures to date, including staff time, consulting fees, and all initiatives related to climate action.
Provide full transparency on what we have been signed up for.
A Simple Solution
We have a straightforward option:
➡ Withdraw from this program by passing a motion and sending a letter of withdrawal to FCM.
Doing so would:
Restore our local agenda
Refocus our budget on essential municipal responsibilities
Ensure that every dollar spent directly benefits the community instead of being tied up in global marketing schemes
Conclusion
Scaling back our commitment to the FCM-ICLEI PCP program could free up substantial funds for critical local needs.
I respectfully recommend that:
The region commission a thorough and transparent cost analysis covering all past and projected expenditures.
The council seriously consider withdrawing from the PCP program altogether.
The KICLEI Canada team from across the country supports this recommendation.
Our mission is to promote practical, locally driven solutions that ensure every dollar spent benefits our community, rather than being lost in costly, one-size-fits-all global mandates that primarily enrich multinational corporations, affiliated consultants, and product suppliers.
Thank you for your time. I am happy to take any questions.
Council Discussion
Councillor Foxton:
"Madam Chair, I'd like to direct staff to provide more information on this for council at a later date, if that's possible."
Chair Redmond:
"Do we have the consensus of council that they would like this issue to come back at a later date?"
Councillor:
"I just want more information about what this is, how it runs—everything."
Chair Redmond:
"Would it suffice if we had an email perhaps?"
Councillor:
"That's perfect, thank you."
Chair Redmond:
"Okay, thank you. Thank you, Peter. I don’t see any further questions. You may leave a copy of your deputation on the table for any council members who would like to review it."
(End of speech.)
There are facts and there is law and there is liability and there are damages in all cases. Prove the facts and the law, the liability and the damages, in court, and you win, and get judgement in your favor.
King Aethelred - 1000 AD.
In early Anglo-Saxon Law liability was absolute.
“The doer of a deed was responsible whether he acted innocently or inadvertently, because he was the doer; the owner of an instrument which caused harm was responsible, because he was the owner, though the instrument had been wielded by a thief; the owner of an animal, the master of a slave, was responsible because he was associated with it as owner, as master.”
In short, a man acts at his peril.
Maxims represented the state of the law with much more accuracy in 1100 than they do now!
qui inscienter peccat scienter emendet
he who sins unknowingly will make amends knowingly
There was a fatalistic attitude to life in early times which made men accept misfortune.
Here is a passage to one of the Laws of Aethelred that represents the thought of his age. It reads:
“ And always the greater a man’s position in this present life or the higher the privileges of his rank, the more fully shall he make amends for his sins, and the more dearly shall he pay for all misdeeds; for the strong and the weak are not alike nor can they bear a like burden any more than the sick can be treated like the sound. And therefore, in forming a judgement, careful discrimination must be made between age and youth, wealth and poverty, health and sickness, and the various ranks of life, both in the amends imposed by ecclesiastical authority, and in the penalties inflicted by the secular law. And if it happens that a man commits a misdeed involuntarily or unintentionally, the case is different from that of one who offends of his own free will voluntarily or intentionally; and likewise, he who is an involuntary agent in his misdeeds should always be entitled to clemency and better terms, owning to the fact that he acted as an involuntary agent. “