Latest news with #BryanPurcell
National Observer
29-07-2025
- Automotive
- National Observer
An EV sales mandate is good public health policy, analysis shows
If the federal government caves to automakers' pressure to cancel the electric vehicle sales mandate, there will be significant negative impacts to Canadians' health, medical professionals and researchers warn. The federal policy — which requires hybrids and EVs to make up 20 per cent of sales in 2026 and 100 per cent by 2035 — will save Canada more than $90 billion and 11,000 premature deaths over the next 25 years, according to analysis by The Atmospheric Fund, a Toronto-based non-profit focused on climate change and air pollution. 'We are devastating the future generation,' said registered nurse Doris Grinspun in an interview with Canada's National Observer. And as if the death toll of pollution wasn't enough, she said, hospitalizations also impose significant costs on already strained healthcare systems. 'While the EV availability standard has been communicated from the beginning as a climate policy, we think it's equally, if not more compelling as a health policy,' said Bryan Purcell, the vice-president of policy and programs for The Atmospheric Fund. 'When you look at these kind of numbers of avoided deaths that can be achieved and other health benefits, I think it could purely justify the policy on health grounds, even if we didn't have a climate crisis on our hands,' he added. Climate change and health are inextricably linked. Gas- and diesel-powered vehicles release harmful pollutants into the air, including planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions. Burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas is a main driver of climate change and as the planet warms, wildfires become more frequent and severe, often blanketing vast swaths of land in acrid smoke while pollen and other allergens become more prevalent. Air pollution is undeniably bad for humans: long-term exposure increases the risk of developing all manner of conditions, including lung diseases, heart disease and cancer. 'When you look at these kind of numbers of avoided deaths that can be achieved and other health benefits, I think it could purely justify the policy on health grounds, even if we didn't have a climate crisis on our hands,' said Bryan Purcell with TAF Health Canada warns exposure to traffic-related air pollution (from vehicle exhaust, tire and brake wear and tear and other particles) leads to the development and worsening of asthma symptoms in children, lung cancer in adults and premature deaths. It also likely causes childhood leukemia and cardiovascular diseases. Some people — including children, pregnant women, people with pre-existing conditions and seniors — are more vulnerable to air pollution and communities located near major roads or industrial areas are more likely to be Indigenous, racialized or poorer, said Grinspun. Take asthma, for example. 'I used to have it when I was a kid, it feels like you're dying to the child and to the parents,' Grinspun said. Compared to lung cancer, a respiratory disease like asthma may sound less serious, but it is still devastating to human health and puts a huge burden on Canada's healthcare systems, said Grinspun, who is CEO of the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario. Asthma causes an estimated 300 deaths and 80,000 emergency room visits each year, according to advocacy group Asthma Canada's 2024 report. Asthma Canada estimates this disease alone will cost the Canadian economy $4.2 billion by 2033. Unless countries, including Canada, take major steps to curb greenhouse gas emissions and phase out fossil fuels, climate change will keep accelerating and with it air pollution and the associated negative health impacts and loss of life. The Atmospheric Fund's analysis only examined the impacts of reduced air pollution from gas vehicles in Canada's two major corridors: southwestern British Columbia and the Windsor-Quebec City Corridor. The estimated $90-plus billion savings and 11,000 avoided premature deaths would be even higher if applied across the whole country, explained Purcell. Automakers lobbying the federal government say they cannot meet the targets in the Electric Vehicle Availability Standard, pointing to the ongoing trade war with the United States and dip in EV sales in early 2025. 'Putting seat belts in cars was opposed by every North American automaker as a regulation and they used the same kinds of arguments they're using today,' Purcell said. Arguments that it should be up to consumer choice were also part of the seat belt and airbags conversation, he noted. 'Ultimately, governments decided that that wasn't the case, that actually there was a role for public policy to protect the public interest and public safety and we really see this regulation very similarly,' Purcell said. The dip in EV sales coincided with the federal government ending its $5,000 EV rebate program. At the same time, Quebec — a major player in the EV market — paused its rebate program when funds ran dry, causing a dip in sales, Purcell added. In June, federal Environment and Climate Change Minister Julie Dabrusin said the government was working to bring back some type of EV rebate but what exactly that will look like is still unknown. 'Many other parts of the country, including Ontario, saw modest increases in sales or flat sales,' Purcell said, indicating the slowdown in the first quarter of 2025 is likely associated with the changes to those rebate programs. The transportation sector is Canada's at 23 per cent, trailing the oil and gas sector at 30 per cent of national emissions. More than half the transport sector's emissions are from passenger cars and trucks. Passenger buses, trains and other transit make up a comparatively tiny share even though aviation emissions are included in the same category.
Canada Standard
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Canada Standard
Green Building Standards Unaffected by Controversial Provincial Legislation, Toronto Says
After Ontario's Bill 17 was fast tracked to royal assent, Toronto city staff say the new legislation won't affect the city's standards for green buildings. The Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act was rushed through to approval June 3 without the typical public hearings and standing committee review. It drew opposition for provisions that some organizations said would strip municipalities of their power to enforce green building standards-rules requiring developers to design buildings in ways that conserve water and energy and cut greenhouse gas emissions, for example. Cities like Toronto have relied on the Municipal Act and the City of Toronto Act to support standards like its Toronto Green Standard (TGS). But that authority was based on a "grey area" of the provincial Building Code Act that was "generally interpreted to mean that if a building code requirement actively conflicts with a municipal bylaw, then the building code requirement takes precedence," Bryan Purcell, vice-president of policy and programs at The Atmospheric Fund (TAF), told The Energy Mix in May. Organizations like TAF warned that Bill 17 risked undermining that authority by clarifying the grey area. With the new legislation, the Building Code Act now states that "certain sections of the Municipal Act, 2001 and the City of Toronto Act, 2006 do not authorize a municipality to pass by-laws respecting the construction or demolition of buildings." View our latest digests Alexandra Sanita, a spokesperson for Ontario's municipal affairs and housing minister Rob Flack, said in a statement to The Narwhal that the legislation "standardizes construction requirements and provides consistency, clarifying that no municipality has the authority to enforce a by-law that supersedes the Ontario Building Code." "Through these changes, the City of Toronto's Tier 1 of the Green Building Standard would not be allowed as they mandate requirements for new development planning applications that go beyond the Ontario building code." Tier 1 is a list of mandatory green building requirements. Other tiers, which set incentives but are not mandatory, would still be allowed. But Toronto city staff later released an assessment of the Act's impacts. They determined that "there is no impact to the City's ability to continue to apply the TGS to new development." When asked how the Act's impacts on other legislation, like the Municipal Act , might affect the TGS, the City told The Energy Mix it "cannot provide further comment on the topic at this time" because of legal action against the TGS filed last year. Comments submitted to the legislature by the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA) state that the new amendment does not change the legislative powers of the province to set construction standards, and that municipalities can pass by-laws in pursuit of economic, social, and environmental, including for climate change. "Municipal action in pursuit of those listed goals, as long as they do not require specific construction standards, will not conflict or overlap with provincial authority," says CELA. However, CELA criticizes other parts of the Act that limit cities' access to information about new buildings. Source: The Energy Mix
Canada News.Net
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Canada News.Net
Green Building Standards Unaffected by Controversial Provincial Legislation, Toronto Says
After Ontario's Bill 17 was fast tracked to royal assent, Toronto city staff say the new legislation won't affect the city's standards for green buildings. The Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act was rushed through to approval June 3 without the typical public hearings and standing committee review. It drew opposition for provisions that some organizations said would strip municipalities of their power to enforce green building standards-rules requiring developers to design buildings in ways that conserve water and energy and cut greenhouse gas emissions, for example. Cities like Toronto have relied on the Municipal Act and the City of Toronto Act to support standards like its Toronto Green Standard (TGS). But that authority was based on a "grey area" of the provincial Building Code Act that was "generally interpreted to mean that if a building code requirement actively conflicts with a municipal bylaw, then the building code requirement takes precedence," Bryan Purcell, vice-president of policy and programs at The Atmospheric Fund (TAF), told The Energy Mix in May. Organizations like TAF warned that Bill 17 risked undermining that authority by clarifying the grey area. With the new legislation, the Building Code Act now states that "certain sections of the Municipal Act, 2001 and the City of Toronto Act, 2006 do not authorize a municipality to pass by-laws respecting the construction or demolition of buildings." View our latest digests Alexandra Sanita, a spokesperson for Ontario's municipal affairs and housing minister Rob Flack, said in a statement to The Narwhal that the legislation "standardizes construction requirements and provides consistency, clarifying that no municipality has the authority to enforce a by-law that supersedes the Ontario Building Code." "Through these changes, the City of Toronto's Tier 1 of the Green Building Standard would not be allowed as they mandate requirements for new development planning applications that go beyond the Ontario building code." Tier 1 is a list of mandatory green building requirements. Other tiers, which set incentives but are not mandatory, would still be allowed. But Toronto city staff later released an assessment of the Act's impacts. They determined that "there is no impact to the City's ability to continue to apply the TGS to new development." When asked how the Act's impacts on other legislation, like the Municipal Act, might affect the TGS, the City told The Energy Mix it "cannot provide further comment on the topic at this time" because of legal action against the TGS filed last year. Comments submitted to the legislature by the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA) state that the new amendment does not change the legislative powers of the province to set construction standards, and that municipalities can pass by-laws in pursuit of economic, social, and environmental, including for climate change. "Municipal action in pursuit of those listed goals, as long as they do not require specific construction standards, will not conflict or overlap with provincial authority," says CELA. However, CELA criticizes other parts of the Act that limit cities' access to information about new buildings.
