\u201cThe legislation would make it easier to build new landfill capacity here in Ontario, recognize energy from waste as a core part of our waste management system, and modernize how environmental decisions are made for the first time in more than three decades,\u201d environment minister Todd McCarthy said last week, claiming new tariffs on transport trucks hauling garbage and waste products from Canada into Michigan helped justify the alarming decision.<\/p>\n
Schedule 7 of Bill 140 proposes repealing \u201csection 17.5\u201d of the Environmental Assessment Act which requires landfill developers to obtain written \u201csupport\u201d from the host municipality before proceeding with a comprehensive environmental assessment.<\/p>\n
The \u2018right to say no\u2019 policy was first introduced by the Ford government in 2020 through Bill 197<\/a> to give municipalities a say over projects that could have lasting consequences for their communities including large landfill proposals.<\/p>\n When asked if the province would force a landfill or an incinerator expansion on a municipality that did not want one, McCarthy did not give a definite response. He said the government would \u201calways prefer a host community that\u2019s willing\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cAnyone who thinks that the old ways of doing things can just go on, that the garbage is going to disappear into outer space, it will not,\u201d he added, emphasizing the need for conversations with municipalities, public education and the \u201clocal economic benefits\u201d of hosting a landfill and an energy-to-waste facility, including jobs and long-term employment.\u00a0<\/p>\n He failed to mention air pollutants such as dioxins, furans and particulate matter, greenhouse gas emissions, the potential health risks and operating costs associated with waste-to-energy facilities<\/a>.<\/p>\n The proposed changes have stirred concern among several communities.\u00a0<\/p>\n In Caledon, Ward 1 councillor-elect Keri Parfitt wrote to residents on November 3, urging them to submit comments before the November 26 deadline if they want to protect their private wells, farms and rural communities which could suddenly be at risk.<\/p>\n \u201cThe proposed removal of environmental protections under the Environmental Bill of Rights, combined with the removal of municipal authority over landfill approvals, raises serious concerns, particularly for PRIVATE WELL OWNERS,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n Brampton Environmental Alliance (BEA) Vice-President Steve Papagiannis says his community has already been blindsided. It was not willing to host the Emerald Energy from Waste incinerator expansion in northeast Brampton but the decision was still forced onto the municipality.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Rendering by Emerald Energy from Waste for the Brampton incinerator\u2019s expansion. (Emerald Energy from Waste)<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n The Emerald Incinerator where the red pin is, right next to the 407 Highway, commercial businesses and near residential subdivisions. (Google Satellite)<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n In April 2025, Public health officials at the Region of Peel warned the proposed expansion would drive a \u2018six-fold increase\u2019 in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, posing a major setback for Peel\u2019s climate targets. In turn, increased emissions may worsen air and soil pollution, raising the risk of cancer, respiratory diseases and heart conditions among nearby residents.\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n The facility owner\u2019s Environmental Screening Report (ESR) warned the area surrounding the incinerator is already burdened with high levels of air pollution, including elevated concentrations of hydrochloric acid and benzo(a)pyrene (B[a]P)\u2014a probable human carcinogen\u2014that exceed provincial air quality standards.<\/p>\n Peel Region\u2019s Human Health Risk Assessment found that, under worst-case scenarios, certain air pollutants\u2014specifically nitrogen oxides and trichloroethylene\u2014exceeded health effect benchmarks at community locations near the Brampton facility, particularly at a nearby sports field.\u00a0<\/p>\n These risks reach populations beyond the region, and will be compounded by deep-rooted social inequities in the area, including a higher proportion of racialized residents, single-parent families, individuals without high school diplomas and elevated unemployment rates<\/a>, all of whom already face increased social inequities due to a range of systemic barriers and government policies. Placing waste-burning operations in communities that are predominantly white with populations that are more politically influential is rare in Canada.\u00a0<\/p>\n Brampton will now be the waste-burning capital of the country.\u00a0<\/p>\n In 2024, the city emitted 3,971,168 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent \u2014 183,254 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent from waste alone, according to The Atmospheric Fund<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Peel Municipalities 2024 emissions by sector. (The Atmospheric Fund)<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n The strong smell of waste engulfs the area around the Brampton incinerator. (Anushka Yadav\/The Pointer)<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n On April 12, Peel Regional Council decided to write a letter to Ontario\u2019s ministers of environment and health calling for stronger pollution controls, independent community oversight, transparent emissions data, and a serious evaluation of the Brampton incinerator expansion\u2019s climate and health impacts.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThis is black and white. This is science,\u201d former Brampton Councillor Gurpartap Singh Toor said during the council meeting. \u201cWe had a lot of groups come, delegate about this, raising the red flag about this issue\u2026here we have a project like this, that if it goes through, harms all those kids living in those areas. It is very unfortunate to see that we don\u2019t really have the power to dictate what happens there\u2014but we do have the power to advocate to the province.\u201d<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n The Region of Peel urged the province for stricter pollution controls, independent community oversight, transparent emissions data and a rigorous evaluation of the project\u2019s climate and health impacts. (Region of Peel)<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Two weeks later, the province allowed the 30-year-old Emerald Energy From Waste (EEFW) facility to proceed with plans to nearly quintuple its incineration capacity\u2014from 182,000 to 900,000 tonnes a year\u2014pending the fulfillment of specific conditions.<\/p>\n McCarthy believed the facility did not need a full environmental assessment. MECP 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\u2019s 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<\/a>, contradicting decades of established planning and development procedures meant to balance growth while protecting the environment and human health.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cI was really disappointed that they moved forward despite all the evidence showing it\u2019s a bad idea,\u201d Brampton resident and small business owner Amisha Moorjani told The Pointer.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cIt goes against global scientific guidelines, with experts urging us to reduce, reuse, and recycle. Instead, they\u2019re allowing a for-profit corporation to essentially buy garbage from other places and burn it here in Brampton\u2026The government didn\u2019t address the community’s concerns at all, and that was really frustrating.\u201d<\/p>\n Both Moorjani and Papagiannis agreed that public participation in such decisions has never been a priority, pointing out that while organizations like Emerald claim to engage the public, the actual efforts are minimal.<\/p>\n \u201cI didn\u2019t even know we had a waste incinerator here in Brampton until April 2024,\u201d Moorjani added.<\/p>\n The proposal had only come to light in 2023 after Environmental Defence uncovered the expansion plans 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Incinerators release more greenhouse gases and toxic pollutants than fossil gas per unit of electricity, and the facility\u2019s plan to produce hydrogen from plastic involves a carbon-heavy process that burns more energy than it creates\u2014far from the \u201cgreen hydrogen\u201d standard, which relies on renewable sources like wind or solar.<\/p>\n While the expansion\u2019s groundbreaking was expected in the later half of this year, EEFW told media that the construction start has been delayed to 2027 as they don\u2019t have a permit yet from MECP.\u00a0<\/p>\n The Pointer reached out to Emerald Energy for Waste and MECP for comment but did not receive a response.<\/p>\n The facility will be able to burn almost five times more waste once the expansion is complete. The full buildout is anticipated by 2030.\u00a0<\/p>\n But who is going to check emissions when the province scrapped its mandate to set GHG emission reduction targets, publish climate change plans, and issue public progress reports on November 25, 2025<\/a>?<\/p>\n \u201cThe big problem with not reporting is there\u2019s a lack of accountability now. So if corporations are out there doing things\u2026the public has a right to know if their air is being polluted. They have the right to know if the air quality is affecting their brain cells,\u201d Papagiannis said.<\/p>\n On November 2, he joined Ontario Green Party Leader Mike Schreiner and Kitchener Centre MPP Aislinn Clancy to urge the province to protect Brampton residents from toxic pollution linked to the Emerald incinerator and prevent communities across Ontario from becoming \u201csacrifice zones\u201d as a result of the \u201cFord government\u2019s complete mismanagement of waste\u201d.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n On Monday, Brampton resident Steve Papagiannis (right) joined Ontario Green Party leader Mike Schreiner and Member of Provincial Parliament for Kitchener Centre Aislinn Clancy to oppose the province\u2019s plans to expand landfills and burn waste without municipal consent. (Anushka Yadav\/The Pointer)<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cOne of the reasons we\u2019re fighting so strongly against Bill 140 is that we don\u2019t want to see the same thing that’s happening in Brampton happening in communities across the province,\u201d Schreiner said.<\/p>\n \u201cThe monitoring removals in Bill 140 is a threat not only to Brampton but to communities across Ontario.\u201d<\/p>\n Papagiannis added, Bill 40 may not impact the Brampton incinerator but it is still imperative that residents try to hold the province as well as the facility owner, Emerald, \u201caccountable for what they burn\u201d.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cAnd if we can increase the air quality standards and have them report on what they\u2019re doing,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n \u201cWe want to solve the problem of making garbage. We don\u2019t want to make it easier to burn and bury this trash.\u201d<\/p>\n He recalled when the Brampton incinerator was first built in the early 90s, it stood on what was then the \u201cedge of the city\u201d. Today, however, it is surrounded by an expanding urban community, with Bramalea GO station less than a kilometre away, residential neighbourhoods within three kilometres and a children\u2019s soccer field immediately adjacent to the facility.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is not some remote incinerator that\u2019s going to affect no one\u2019s lives. It\u2019s going to affect all the citizens of Brampton,\u201d he remarked.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n \u201cWe already know there will be long-term accumulation of toxins. Polluters often argue they\u2019re operating \u2018within limits\u2019 because emissions are measured in parts per million\u2014but over time, that adds up,\u201d he noted.<\/p>\n The Pointer asked Schreiner if he would advocate for updating Ontario\u2019s Guideline A-7<\/a>, which governs air pollution control for municipal waste incineration. Experts including BEA and the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) have criticized the outdated guidelines 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.<\/p>\n \u201cAbsolutely, we know both in Brampton and Durham Region that the incinerators in both locations produce toxic air pollution that are above the provincial standards,\u201d he said.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s unacceptable in Durham, it\u2019s unacceptable in Brampton, and it\u2019s going to be unacceptable in any of the other communities this government imposes incinerators on due to its mismanagement. We need to make sure that the proper regulations are in place to monitor toxic air pollution around these incinerators to protect people’s health.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n For a 2024 study<\/a>, researchers took food and water samples near waste incineration and co-incineration facilities in Slovakia and the Netherlands and found elevated levels of persistent organic pollutants including dioxins and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in surface water that also enter the food chain. Eggs from backyard chickens living near both facilities contained dioxin concentrations nearly 300 percent above the European Union\u2019s allowable limits.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n European investigations have confirmed free-range and backyard chicken eggs collected near waste incinerators and industrial facilities frequently exceed European Union safety limits for dioxins, PCBs as well as PFAS. (The True Toxic Toll\/Zero Waste Europe)<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n But there are other problems associated with waste-to-energy facilities that aren\u2019t often talked about: additional diesel truck traffic the expansion could bring at a time when residents are already struggling with traffic congestion and air quality concerns.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s going to affect the home values of all the people who live in Brampton, and it\u2019s going to reduce the quality of life overall for people in Brampton,\u201d he feared.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cWe want the government to rescind the expansion. I don\u2019t believe that\u2019s going to happen, but if they do, that [would be] the best case.\u201d<\/p>\n However, he is cognizant of the decision taken by the province and is now pushing for stronger oversight and public accountability.<\/p>\n While approving the facility, MECP set several conditions for the expansion. These included 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 Environmental Compliance Approval amendment process to mitigate risks to the environment and the community.\u00a0<\/p>\n Environmental Defence\u2019s senior program manager for plastics, Karen 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 \u2018moving grate technology\u2019, which is a shift from its current gasification approach and cannot be done under the existing permit.<\/p>\n It\u2019s unclear whether any amount of filtration and pollution control equipment can adequately 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.<\/p>\n Papagiannis reiterated residents want regular, unannounced monitoring of the facility by the provincial government.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThey currently do a once-a-year measurement, and they\u2019re given advance warning,\u201d he explained.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cIf you look at a local restaurant, a health inspector can drop in at any time and do an inspection. We can at least expect the same for a massive incinerator in this province.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n He wants the province to install dioxin samplers in the incinerator\u2019s stacks to provide more regular information about emissions, as well as public reporting on the waste entering the facility to ensure hazardous materials are not being burned.<\/p>\n \u201cThe Brampton expansion is a business proposition. It\u2019s going to need big, juicy waste contracts from municipalities in Ontario,\u201d Wirsig told The Pointer.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cAnd so, the next step, if people want to save communities around Brampton from breathing garbage, is to stop municipalities from signing contracts with Emerald and sending their waste there.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019re heading in the wrong direction\u2026we\u2019re just literally now on a race to open landfills and build incinerators,\u201d Wirsig had warned last year.<\/p>\n She had also expressed concerns that the Brampton facility undermined waste reduction and diversion policies, but MECP felt those 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.\u00a0<\/p>\n Wirsig found that \u201cabsurd\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cThe proponent\u2019s (Emerald\u2019s) job isn\u2019t to consider waste diversion; their job is to burn garbage,\u201d she said.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s the province\u2019s responsibility to consider waste policy and figure out how to reduce the amount of waste we\u2019re burning or burying in our communities.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cSo far, the Province has done nothing.\u201d<\/p>\n Ontario’s Circular Economy Act<\/a>, 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.<\/p>\n \u201cUnlike 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,\u201d Wirsig said.\u00a0<\/p>\n Under Bill 140, the province has proposed amendments to the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, 2016 and the Blue Box Regulation, to supposedly \u201cimprove transparency and accountability\u201d, and \u201ccurb\u201d higher-than-expected cost increases in the recycling system.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThe new blue box program is not even a year old and the government is already proposing to let the companies responsible for collecting and recycling our discarded packaging off the hook, and leave municipalities and residents holding the bag,\u201d Environmental Defence\u2019s Karen bWirsig said. (Environmental Registry of Ontario)<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Under the proposed changes, producers would no longer be responsible for collecting flexible plastic packaging such as bags, films, wrappers and pouches, less than a year after they were held accountable for their actions.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cMunicipalities would have to handle them as trash. That\u2019s 80,000 tonnes of plastic garbage every year \u2014 and likely growing,\u201d Wirsig noted.\u00a0<\/p>\n Ontario\u2019s producer-led Blue Box system, managed province-wide by Circular Materials since January 1 this year, shifted full financial and operational responsibility for residential recycling from municipalities to the companies that produce the packaging.<\/p>\n \u201cThe new [January 2026] blue box system was never meant to be just a privatized recycling program. Its purpose was to make the companies that put all that throwaway packaging on the market responsible for dealing with the mess after we\u2019ve unwrapped their products,\u201d Wirsig said.<\/p>\n \u201cMunicipalities used to be responsible for emptying our blue boxes and trying to recycle what was inside. They already knew how expensive and difficult it is to manage today\u2019s mountains of single-use packaging. Anyone could have guessed that, all things being equal, the new blue box program was going to be expensive and difficult for producers too.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cBut the point was certainly not to keep all things equal.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n The Ford government is also planning to remove the requirement for producers to collect excess recycling left beside blue boxes, potentially leaving Ontarians to store overflow materials until a later collection or dispose of them as garbage.<\/p>\n Wirsig argued the changes undermine the central principle of \u201cextended producer responsibility\u201d: making companies financially accountable for the packaging they introduce into the market and incentivizing them to reduce unnecessary packaging or design products that are easier to reuse and recycle.<\/p>\n The complex challenge also requires a clear understanding: Ontario has a waste problem.<\/p>\n \u201cOn average, each person in the province produces more than 850 kilograms of waste every year. For the past 10 years, we have only recycled about 25 per cent of our waste and the situation has not improved,\u201d former Minister of the Environment and Climate Change Glen Murray said in a statement<\/a> in 2017.<\/p>\n \u201cThis means that over eight million tonnes of our waste is sent to landfill each year.\u201d<\/p>\n That number has changed\u2014not for the better.<\/p>\n In a recent video<\/a>, McCarthy acknowledged, \u201cOntario sends about 12 million tonnes of waste to landfill every year\u201d.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n A 2023 report<\/a> by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) shows there has been an uptick in the per capita waste generated across Ontario, ranking the province among the highest levels of waste per person in the world. (Association of Municipalities of Ontario)<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Wirsig believes Ontario needs much stronger requirements for businesses to reduce waste and separate organic materials, particularly food scraps \u2014 \u201cthe biggest, most heavy fraction of waste\u201d, which should be directed to clean composting or anaerobic digestion facilities rather than incinerators or landfills.<\/p>\n Single-use packaging (particularly plastic) is the second major driver of the province\u2019s growing waste problem. Critics argue Ontario needs to reduce unnecessary packaging and invest in reuse and refill systems.<\/p>\n \u201cThose two things alone will contribute enormously to bringing down per capita waste on the consumer side,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n \u201cBusinesses are not held to any standards right now when it comes to waste diversion, and waste reduction\u2026.and Bill 140 will only nibble around the edges of that problem.<\/p>\n \u201cWe need much stricter requirements for businesses to separate out their organics and have an organics ban in landfills and incinerators, and make sure all that material is being properly processed.\u201d<\/p>\n She disagrees with McCarthy\u2019s push for the benefits of creating energy from waste.<\/p>\n \u201cIncineration is not renewable energy. It\u2019s wasteful energy. If we want renewable energy, which we do, we need to support wind and solar that are cheaper,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n \u201cWe don\u2019t want to be producing single-use plastics so that we can burn them in an incinerator and call that renewable waste. This just invites very toxic pollution from the moment that plastic is created, to when we\u2019re using it, and it\u2019s sloughing off microplastics, to when it\u2019s burned in an incinerator and generating some of the most toxic chemicals known to science.\u201d<\/p>\n
Email: [email\u00a0protected]<\/a>\u00e2\u20ac\u00a9<\/p>\n At a time when vital public information is needed by everyone, The Pointer has taken down our paywall on all stories\u00a0to 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\u00a0HERE<\/a>. Thereafter, The Pointer will charge $10 a month and you can cancel any time right on the website. Thank you<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"By Anushka Yadav – Local Journalism Initiative Reporter Nov 03, 2026 – Brampton, Mississauga, Niagara Just over a…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":957473,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[194339],"tags":[51759,49,48],"class_list":["post-957472","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-brampton","tag-brampton","tag-ca","tag-canada"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/957472","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=957472"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/957472\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/957473"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=957472"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=957472"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=957472"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/6aea762cbc389.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/6aea762e2caf0.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/6aea762e3e250.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/6aea762e473a0.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/6aea762e6e135.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/6aea762e90ceb.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/6aea762ea017b.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/6aea762ec63bf.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/6aea762ed7180.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/6aea762ee5a89.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\n\u00a0<\/p>\n