PCs approve controversial application to make Brampton the ‘waste burning capital of Ontario’

The Ontario government has approved the massive expansion of a controversial waste-to-energy facility in Brampton, ignoring strong opposition from environmental groups, public health experts and hundreds of residents whose request for a full environmental assessment was denied.

The facility will be able to burn almost five times more waste once the expansion is complete. The incinerator expansion, projected to make it the biggest in Canada, could trigger a six-fold surge in greenhouse gas emissions in Brampton.

“It’s a tough pill to swallow,” Amisha Moorjani, a Brampton resident, said. She is worried about the health and future of her family, especially her children, who will now be exposed to toxic, cancer-causing chemicals from the incinerator. A disturbing report from the Region of Peel recently laid out the health risks to surrounding residents should the facility expansion move forward, including the potential for higher rates of certain cancers and respiratory diseases. 

“I was really disappointed that they moved forward with this despite all the evidence showing it’s a bad idea,” Moorjani told The Pointer. “It goes against global scientific guidelines, with experts urging us to reduce, reuse, and recycle. Instead, they’re allowing a for-profit corporation to essentially buy garbage from other places and burn it here in Brampton. The letter from the government didn’t address the community's concerns at all, and that was really frustrating.”

Despite receiving 446 formal requests for a comprehensive review, Environment Minister Todd McCarthy has allowed the 30-year-old Emerald Energy From Waste facility in northeast Brampton to proceed with plans to nearly quintuple its incineration capacity—from 182,000 to 900,000 tonnes a year—pending the fulfillment of specific conditions.

“We’re obviously disappointed,” Environmental Defence’s senior program manager for plastics, Karen Wirsig, told The Pointer. “A full environmental assessment would’ve allowed for more independent scrutiny and scientific input—which we think is sorely missing.”

In early April, Peel’s Medical Officer of Health warned regional council that the added pollution could further degrade Brampton’s already poor air quality, heightening the risk of respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses for nearby residents—many of whom already live with chronic conditions such as COPD, heart disease and diabetes.

The Region of Peel found residents in the surrounding area of the incinerator are already exposed to harmful chemicals above allowable levels.

(Region of Peel)

The Region of Peel called for stronger pollution controls, independent community oversight, transparent emissions data and a serious evaluation of the project’s climate and health impacts.

(Region of Peel)

In 2023, Environmental Defence first uncovered plans to expand the Emerald Energy From Waste facility in Bramalea, just north of Pearson Airport, and found that even without a completed environmental assessment, the PC government had already pledged $2.99 million to fund hydrogen production experiments using garbage combustion. The company, at the time, was proceeding through a new, expedited provincial Environmental Assessment process introduced by the Ford government.

Emerald has promoted its waste-burning facility as a source of clean energy, but experts have refuted this claim, noting that garbage is neither renewable nor clean.

“Generating more energy from garbage in Ontario will make our electricity grid dirtier than it is today,” an  Environmental Defence statement warns.

The Pointer reached out to Emerald Energy for Waste for comment but did not receive a response.

Incinerators release more greenhouse gases and toxic pollutants than fossil gas per unit of electricity, and the facility’s plan to produce hydrogen from plastic involves a carbon-heavy process that burns more energy than it creates—far from the “green hydrogen” standard, which relies on renewable sources like wind or solar.

On April 1, 2024, 14 environmental and health organizations—including Environmental Defence—wrote to Premier Doug Ford’s PC government to express concern over the facility’s potential impact on Brampton’s environment and public health, warning that allowing the project to proceed would contradict Peel Region’s climate goals and disproportionately harm the “already burdened” communities.

In 2023, Brampton was the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases in Peel (its population has recently surpassed Mississauga’s). The levels of pollution in a city that has committed to cut its emissions by 45 percent below 2010 levels by 2030 raises questions about what local leaders are doing to meet this target. Ontario’s third largest city has seen its population swell to 791,486, growing by nearly 100,000 residents since 2020. It’s a surge that has intensified concerns over chronic underfunding for transit, healthcare and green infrastructure, while the impacts of policies that create more pollution have largely been ignored. 

With just five years left to meet its climate goals, the combination of rapid growth, a widening funding gap for critical infrastructure and policies that worsen the already poor air quality has concerned advocates who have suggested Brampton continues to suffer from environmental racism.

On April 28, the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) rejected calls for a full environmental assessment of the incinerator expansion, stating that key concerns—from air and water pollution to socio-economic and ecological effects—had been sufficiently addressed through technical studies as part of Ontario’s Environmental Screening Process. The recent decision came days after the PCs introduced new legislation that would allow them to exempt massive infrastructure projects from existing provincial and municipal laws. 

McCarthy stated the ministry was satisfied that concerns related to air emissions, residual ash management, waste stream monitoring and impacts on the natural environment will be addressed through a further technical review as part of the facility’s Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) applications and related permitting processes for air, noise, waste disposal and sewage works. This is a pattern with the PC government which has approached big projects by approving first and studying later, contradicting decades of established planning and development procedures meant to balance growth while protecting the environment and human health. 

Brampton Environmental Alliance (BEA) board member Steve Papagiannis expressed concern over the long-term accumulation of toxins from the incinerator, noting that even emissions within acceptable limits could result in harmful cumulative effects over time.

“We already know there will be long-term accumulation of toxins. Polluters often argue they’re operating ‘within limits’ because emissions are measured in parts per million—but over time, that adds up,” Papagiannis explained in an interview with The Pointer.

“They might say it’s only two parts per million, but that could still mean releasing 100 kilograms of dioxins over years. The issue isn’t just the concentration at any given moment; it’s the cumulative impact.” 

The MECP has set several conditions for the expansion, including the submission of a Technology Benchmarking Report to minimize emissions; the provision of real-time operational data to the public; a plan for managing and disposing of ash in line with regulations; measures for identifying and removing unauthorized waste; and the implementation of a backup power system, all as part of the ECA amendment process to mitigate risks to the environment and the community. 

Wirsig expects that, under the Technology Benchmarking Report requirement, Emerald Energy From Waste will need a new ECA to proceed with its planned use of ‘moving grate technology’, which is a shift from its current gasification approach and cannot be done under the existing permit.

While moving grate technology, commonly used in waste-to-energy plants, may offer some environmental benefits, its overall impact is complex. It involves burning waste at high temperatures, which can release harmful pollutants like dioxins, furans and particulate matter, contributing to air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and health risks, while also requiring high energy input and generating significant operating costs for environmental protection.

(2020 study on waste incinerators)

Emerald Energy From Waste must meet these conditions before moving forward with the ECA process and obtaining the necessary permits to officially begin the expansion.

Papagiannis expressed relief that the Minister is at least addressing concerns by ensuring real-time monitoring information is made available to the public, which has been a longstanding request.

Wirsig raised concerns about the Minister's letter, which seemingly acknowledges that the expansion will result in worse air quality than what existing, already outdated guidelines allow. 

Environmental Defence, the Brampton Environmental Alliance (BEA), Toronto Environmental Alliance (TEA) and the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) have criticized Ontario’s Guideline A-7, which governs air pollution control for municipal waste incineration, for lacking crucial safeguards such as continuous monitoring of particulate matter and mercury, tracking of dioxins and furans and proper oversight during startup and shutdown.

“There are opportunities during the permitting process to enforce stricter rules, but we’re still waiting for an answer on whether the province will update those guidelines. The minister didn’t address that request in his response, and they’re well beyond the timeline for getting back to us,” Wirsig said, expressing disappointment.

“Basically, it acknowledges that the project wouldn’t even need to meet outdated air quality guidelines, and so would have to apply for a site specific exemption, and it’s these kinds of site specific exemptions we’re seeing cause damage elsewhere,” Wirsig said, noting similar concerns to the one granted to the INEOS plant in Aamjiwnaang First Nation next to Sarnia, which was shut down in 2024 due to its environmental impact.

On April 25, 2024, Aamjiwnaang First Nation declared a state of emergency after elevated benzene levels, a cancer-causing chemical released by the nearby INEOS Styrolution plant, led to illness and hospitalizations among community members.

(Ecojustice)

Wirsig explained that it’s unclear whether any amount of filtration and pollution control equipment can fully address the issue, as waste incineration generates numerous pollutants that end up in the air and accumulate in ecosystems. There are no known examples worldwide where this process has been carried out without posing risks to health or the environment, she noted.

The advocates also expressed concerns the project undermines waste reduction and diversion policies, but the ministry felt these concerns were adequately addressed by the waste company. The ministry also emphasized that it does not endorse one waste management technology over another, leaving it to Emerald to develop waste solutions for its clients. 

Wirsig disagrees, calling this stance "absurd."

“The proponent’s (Emerald’s) job isn’t to consider waste diversion; their job is to burn garbage. It’s the Province’s responsibility to consider waste policy and figure out how to reduce the amount of waste we’re burning or burying in our communities,” she explained. “So far, the Province has done nothing.”

In Ontario, the Blue Box program, which began in 1986, and the Green Bin program, launched in the early 2000s, have played key roles in diverting waste from landfills, with the Blue Box keeping 66 percent of residential paper and packaging out of landfills and the Green Bin program managing food and yard waste for over half of Ontario households.

(Government of Ontario)

Ontario's Circular Economy Act, which governs waste management like the blue box program and other materials like packaging, clearly favours reuse and recycling over disposal or burning. While the Province may not yet have a clear preference between burning or burying garbage, experts in zero waste policy argue that incineration is a worse option than landfills, as it produces harmful byproducts.

“Unlike a landfill, which can temporarily halt waste intake, a waste incinerator requires a continuous supply of waste to function, it is hungry for waste, making it an unsustainable option in the long term. For zero waste advocates like me and my colleagues, properly engineered landfills, if safe, are seen as a preferable option to burning garbage,” Wirsig said. 

She expressed concern about the provincial government's recent decision regarding Bill 5, which reverses plans for an environmental assessment of a privately owned landfill in Dresden, a town in southwestern Ontario. She pointed out that the government’s reasoning for the reversal—citing that "borders might be closed for waste"—fails to address the root cause of the problem: the overwhelming amount of waste being produced.

Echoing Wirsig’s point, Moorjani shared her efforts to reduce waste in her catering business, saying she only produces one black garbage bag per week by using recyclable and reusable takeout containers and minimizing waste overall. 

“We believe in batch cooking and freshly made food, and for waste management, everything compostable goes in compostable bags and is composted, while recyclables are properly sorted. Our black garbage bag waste is limited to just one bag a week,” she said. 

She attributes her success to being diligent about checking Peel Region’s waste sorting guide on its website, ensuring she stays updated on the latest waste management practices.

Moorjani is deeply concerned about the future of Brampton, especially with the lack of action from the MECP and the increasing volume of garbage heading to the city. In June 2024, Simcoe County Council approved a long-term, 20-year contract with Emerald Energy from Waste to export its garbage to Brampton's waste-to-energy facility starting in November 2026.

With limited landfill capacity remaining, the contract was seen as a necessary step to ensure long-term waste management and cost certainty for the county.

“We’re heading in the wrong direction…we’re just literally now on a race to build to open landfills and build incinerators,” Wirsig added, stating the MECP’s decision is “really disappointing and discouraging” especially considering public health warnings that the community is already burdened with air quality worse than other areas in Peel. 

“But instead of addressing these concerns, we’re making Brampton the waste-burning capital of Ontario.”

Moorjani and Papagiannis both agree that public participation in these decisions has never been a priority, pointing out that while organizations like Emerald claim to engage the public, the actual efforts are minimal.

In the letter, the MECP stated that the elevation requests raised concerns about barriers to public involvement and consultation, but asserted that EEW had provided adequate opportunities for public, government and Indigenous engagement, in line with the requirements of the Environmental Screening Process.

Both Brampton residents emphasized that, “public consultations are often advertised in small, easily overlooked newspaper ads or on websites,” and despite these claims, “many residents remain unaware of the incinerator’s existence.” 

Reflecting on his experience, Papagiannis added, “I’ve attended meetings with only a handful of attendees,” and questioned, “Do these consultations truly serve the community?”

“I didn’t even know we had a waste incinerator here in Brampton until April 2024,” Moorjani added.

She highlighted that waste incinerators are given up to five days' notice before inspections, allowing them time to clean up, whereas health inspectors conduct unannounced visits to food businesses. She argued that this advance notice, along with the lack of transparency and genuine outreach, undermines the integrity of public consultations and keeps communities unaware of the potential health risks they face.

"It feels like they’re determined to move forward with this project, no matter what. I don’t understand the thought process or the intention behind it,” Moorjani said, her voice expressing her frustration.

“But if that’s the case, I’d invite the decision-makers from the MECP to come live in the area for a year—experience it for themselves. Let them stay through the spring and enjoy the summer outdoors with the smell of burning plastic in the air. I’d love to see them do that, and then, by all means, make their decision.” 
 

Email: [email protected]

At a time when vital public information is needed by everyone, The Pointer has taken down our paywall on all stories to ensure every resident of Brampton, Mississauga and Niagara has access to the facts. For those who are able, we encourage you to consider a subscription. This will help us report on important public interest issues the community needs to know about now more than ever. You can register for a 30-day free trial HERE. Thereafter, The Pointer will charge $10 a month and you can cancel any time right on the website. Thank you