OpEd - Will Rural and Urban Municipal Amalgamations in Saskatchewan Become Reality (Part 4)

- By Jan Derwores

Feb 11, 2025

Key points from this story:

• Rural-urban municipal amalgamations proposed for enhanced efficiencies
• Rural municipalities governed effectively by local people
• FCM-PCP-ICLEI program lures municipalities into costly obligations
• Five-step "freemium trap" for climate action plans
• Program favours large corporate investors over local businesses
• Municipalities can easily withdraw from the program

Except rural municipalities are governed by local people for local people and this long-used system is functioning very well.

However in Canada rural municipalities and smaller urban municipalities have begun to fall victim to a sophisticated marketing scheme designed to lock them into long-term spending commitments that allegedly primarily benefit the Federation of Canadian municipalities (FCM)-Partners for Climate Protection(PCP)-International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives(ICLEI) and their corporate partners.

“The PCP program operates much like a classic freemium business model, where entry is free, but participation quickly leads to costly obligations,” is the definition found on the Internet.

“The PCP program is marketed as a free initiative and signing up is easy but continued participation leads to costly obligations. Municipalities are lured into climate action plans that demand continuous investment in expensive technology, infrastructure and compliance monitoring,” it says.

The following five steps outline what could be described as the “freemium trap.” If there are elected Reeves, councillors and administrators in Saskatchewan reading this you may recognize these five steps which have been taken from information found on the Internet. It plainly illustrates how rural municipalities would not benefit, and amalgamation with urban municipalities would definitely negatively impact rural Saskatchewan governance.

Step 1: Join for Free (Milestone 1 - Data Collection Begins)

Municipalities are encouraged to sign up for free by passing a simple resolution and notifying FCM. This step commits councils to extensive emissions data collection, not just for the municipal corporation but for the entire community.

The Catch: Collecting baseline emissions data requires significant staff time, software, and smart technology upgrades. This data is then handed over to ICLEI in exchange for a letter of recognition, with zero transparency on how it is used or who profits from it.

Step 2: The Sunk Cost Fallacy (Milestones 2-3 - Setting Targets and Creating a Climate Action Plan)

Once the data is collected, municipalities are guided to the next step of setting reduction targets and developing a climate action plan. Councils have already invested time and money into data collection, and they feel compelled to continue with the program rather than risk admitting that the effort was for nothing.

The Catch: These targets are self-imposed, meaning municipalities have no legal requirement to meet them, but once set, they are used to justify further spending on emissions tracking and reductions. ICLEI refuses to disclose how its corporate sponsors benefit from these long-term reduction targets.

Step 3: The Spending Begins (Milestones 3-4 - Implementing Policies and Technology Upgrades)

With reduction targets in place, municipalities are encouraged to purchase technology and implement policy changes to achieve their emissions goals. This may include:

• Fleet electrification and EV charging stations. Municipal reports begin using phrases like "targeting mobility," restricting private vehicle use.
• Stricter green building codes & retrofitting mandates. New LEED-certified buildings are promoted in the midst of a housing crisis.
• 15-minute city zoning to restrict vehicle use & increase urban density. Smart city tech implementation, digital monitoring systems, and restrictive zoning changes that limit land use and favors global investors.
• Expansion of active transportation networks. Bike lanes in downtown cores, often implemented without regard for Canada’s demographics, climate, and geography.
• Circular economies. A vague rebranding of economic restructuring that fundamentally alters local markets.

The Catch: These costly projects favor large corporate investors and global franchises, making it harder for local businesses and industries to survive.

Step 4: Locking in the Spending Cycle (Milestone 5 - Monitoring and Compliance)

Once policies are implemented, municipalities must continuously monitor emissions, requiring even more data tracking, smart tech, and external consultants.

The Catch: PCP ensures that municipalities are now locked into a permanent spending cycle. Councils are pushed to expand data collection while being told that more technology, such as carbon capture, will be needed to meet residual emissions after 2050.

Step 5: The Trap is Set - Councils Feel They Can’t Leave

Once municipalities reach Milestone 5, backtracking feels impossible. Past reduction targets and climate action plans are used as justification for more spending, and councils are told they must stay the course to meet their net-zero commitments.

The Catch: Municipalities are not legally required to implement net-zero programs. Yet, once enrolled in PCP, councils feel obligated to continue spending on expensive projects that provide no measurable return on investment.

The entire premise of the PCP program is flawed from the start, and does not make sense in a vast, sparsely populated country such as Canada because:

• Canada is already a carbon sink, meaning our forests, wetlands, and agricultural lands absorb more CO₂ than we emit.
• Canadian municipal contributions to global CO₂ are statistically irrelevant.
• Mitigation makes no sense in a country with low emissions and vast carbon sequestration.

Yet, municipalities are pressured into cutting emissions that are already offset by nature, all while raising property taxes and cutting essential local services to pay for ICLEI’s recommended tech-based solutions. Any questioning of the program is met with deflection, but if we can’t ask questions, something is plainly wrong with this program.

Who benefits? Follow the money.

The upside is that councils can withdraw as easily as they joined. Rescind the resolution in council. Notify FCM of withdrawal. Immediately stop unnecessary climate mitigation spending.

This is the fourth installment of a series of educational and proactive articles and is an initiative of the people to support and develop good municipal government. The opportunity to become involved and speak out is now.