June 5, 2025

Meeting Summary

Welcome and Introductions

• W. Roberts introduced M. Naseer as one of the founders of Sustainable Milton and noted she will replace WR as a representative on the committee (though WR will remain on the Heritage Committee). M. Naseer introduced herself and provided a bit about her background in land use planning, environmental assessment, and Indigenous relations. Committee members were then each given the chance to introduce themselves.

 

Approval of Agenda

• The meeting agenda was reviewed and approved with no changes. Motioned by W. Roberts, seconded by N. Mott.

 

Approval of April 2025 Meeting Summary

• There were no changes to the April 3 meeting summary. Motion to approve by K. Voisin and L. Chambers.

 

Committee Business Heritage Committee Update

• D. Reynolds gave an update on the heritage house at Tremaine Rd. CN has coordinated with Transitional Housing to get the proper specifications to send to Stantec for the planned scope of work. Stantec has provided a proposal for the expanded scope of work (following additional details from transitional housing) and CN will be providing an update on that later.

  • CN has found a re-use purpose for the barn and is currently being leased out on a rolling basis for storage. Since there is now fencing around the barn from the lessee, the home itself has an additional layer of security.

  • The other heritage house is not as structurally sound and will need to be taken down. CN has received a report on the structural assessment of the house and the next step will be to amend IAAC’s condition to salvage the material from the house.

  • Participant asked if that amendment to the conditions will be issued quickly or is that expected to take some time.

  • D. Reynolds said this isn’t a particularly complicated change and expects it to be issued in 4-6 months. CN does meet with all regulators on a monthly basis and will bring up this topic at their next meeting.

  • Participant noted that it is preferable to get it done as soon as possible to avoid keeping the house standing through the winter.

  • D. Reynolds said that weather likely won’t be a contributing factor in IAAC’s decision but repeated that this amendment is not a particularly challenging decision to be made and expects it to be approved relatively quickly.

  • E. Thome noted that the Heritage Committee would like to see something salvaged from this house and could perhaps write a small note on the work done and why the timeliness matters to include in CN’s submission to IAAC.

  • D. Reynolds replied that when a condition is amended, there is often a public consultation process. However, that might not be the case here due to the fact that this is an initiative raised by a consultation committee. It could be the case that the consultation aspect has already been fulfilled.

  • T. Flynn asked if the wooden house is fenced off.

  • D. Reynolds replied that it wasn’t but security hasn’t been an issue with that house. The red brick house is more of a cause for concern.

• On the subject of the report, D. Reynolds confirmed they have the scope of work for the first house and will have to determine a timeline with Stantec to see how long it will take to do the assessment and report back to transitional housing.

  • For M. Naseer’s background, T. Flynn provided a brief overview of the red brick heritage house and the feasibility of restoring it to livable conditions for use by Transitional Housing.

  • E. Thome said the conversations between all stakeholders have been cordial but there still remain a number of steps to get to the repair process. At the moment, we are still in the feasibility process.

  • Participant wondered if the contracted landscapers could create some sort of garden for Transitional Housing to use. They noted this is a good opportunity to engage some of the local environmental groups.

 

Committee Member Reports

• E. Thome introduced a roundtable concept for committee members and noted that the purpose of the committee is for its members to speak more than CN. She asked participants for any

• observations they’ve heard from the community as well as any comments from the site tour.

• Participant praised the site visit but noted they are still hearing pushback from the community. They happen to know two recently elected MPs and would like to introduce them to the project and send them information.

• Participant said that the community is still confused and there is still uncertainty over whether or not the project is actually going forward. Comments from the local council aren’t helping. Participant noted that the site tour really put into perspective how close the project is to residential areas. Participant noted they are part of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute and wondered if there is a place for the organization or other planners at the next site tour.

• T. Flynn stressed the importance of relationships with the region as a whole rather than just with the local government. Wondered if there is a place for city staff at the committee table.

  • D. Reynolds noted that although there are no more legal avenues to be taken to stop the project, CN has always tried to maintain a collaborative relationship with the Halton Region. DR reached out following the final SCC case to ensure there could still be a form of open dialogue. Re-emphasized that there will always be a seat at the table for discussions with the region.

• Participant asked for an update on the communications plan. D. Reynolds confirmed the team will be running a “mythbuster” campaign to share facts about the project in the area (online publications, social media, etc…).

• T. Flynn remarked that one of the pivotal moments of the current project phase is the opening of the underpass and asked if there is an opportunity to celebrate that completion and build bridges with the community.

• D. Reynolds said they do plan to inform the community about the underpass opening and noted that they are welcome to be involved in the opening in any way they wish.

• E. Thome raised the fact that the purpose of the committee is not to endorse the project. The purpose is to ensure the community has the opportunity to share input on the project to make it the best project it can be going forward. Previously there was false information that if anyone served on the committee, they were automatically in favour of the project.

• For legal reasons, CN was unable to share too much information for the longest time. Now that legal challenges are over, CN is making an effort to broaden communications and transparency about the project, in addition to sharing facts about the project.

• Participant asked if there is an opportunity to put up project display boards at community events like Canada Day or the Fall Fair. D. Reynolds confirmed there certainly is.

• Participant noted that the average community member is not well versed to have thorough conversations about the project from an environmental or engineering perspective. However, the major topic they are hearing from the community is the issue of traffic. Wondered if there is a plan for future traffic studies. CN needs to be thinking about what the area will look like in 10 or 15 years in terms of residential and commercial space use and design their traffic studies around this growth.

• Participant asked about the use of air brakes by trucks at night. This could be an issue considering the proximity of residential areas to the project site.

  • D. Reynolds answered that CN can manage truck behaviour on their property but once a truck moves onto Britannia Rd, that responsibility is moved to the Region. There would have to be a collaboration with the Halton Region to govern the use of air brakes.

  • Participant noted the Milton Quarry had passed out pamphlets on best practices printed in a number of languages for truck drivers.

  • D. Reynolds noted that CN does communicate with the trucking community, however it’s usually the same drivers doing the same run over and over again. The benefit of this is CN can build a relationship with the same drivers to communicate what is and isn’t proper practice.

  • Participant asked about the status of the check-in app and D. Reynolds confirmed that the app eventually will be used to manage reservations, allowing for a “flattening out” of the traffic throughout the day.

  • E. Thome suggested that perhaps closer to operations, there could be a demo for stakeholders of how the app will work.

• E. Thome reminded the group that the committee will continue to sit during operations and noted that there is an opportunity for the committee to continue raising these types of issues and to extend invitations to planners and other organization representatives that might benefit from a voice on the committee.

• Participant noted that they have been hearing accusations from the community that some organizations are giving their support for the project in exchange for money. It is important to think about this from a political lens given the upcoming municipal elections in 2026. There are some very strong opponents to the project that could end up in political office. Furthermore, these opponents are saying the project still isn’t finalized. Hopeful that the “mythbuster” campaign will be able to address this. Participant urged caution that the rhetoric might heat up as election day nears.

• Participant suggested that including high school or middle school students on site tours could be beneficial to raise awareness, given education of the community is so crucial. This could also tie into job opportunities for youth.

  • E. Thome reiterated that it would not be a lot of work to expand the tour invites to planners or students.

  • Participant raised the idea of possibly having a youth representative on the committee.

  • There was general agreement from the committee on the benefits of youth involvement/outreach.

• On the broader subject of maintaining key political relationships, D. Reynolds noted that the project team has good working relationships with the Halton Regional Police and Milton Fire Department.

• Participants reiterated that they are hearing a “mixed-bag” of reactions and confusion over whether or not the project was moving ahead.

• Participant asked if there was an opportunity to put recreational trails near the project site habitat areas.

  • D. Reynolds said there were discussions with the Halton Region and other stakeholders but there wasn’t much appetite from them, however that could be a possibility for the future.

• Participant raised the point that Conservation Halton often hosts meetings regarding community watersheds and wonders if there is an opportunity for CN to be present given all the work being done on the project.

  • D. Reynolds agrees says Conservation Halton is quite a constructive organization to work with. Participants say they will put CN and Conservation Milton in touch.

• T. Flynn reminded the group that the committee has met with Halton Transportation Department representatives before and found the meetings to not be as helpful as had been hoped. With the project now at a different place, it might be worth reaching out to them and other Halton departments again.

• Discussing the review of the action tracker, participant asked if we could place the possibility of getting the project administration building to net-zero as an action item.

  • D. Reynolds says the building is already quite far along in the design process but the committee could invite the architect to come and speak about the environmental/net zero aspects of the design.

  • M. Loureiro noted that as of now, 84% of the building will be powered via solar.

  • E. Thome said there is an item on the tracker about getting this sort of information from the architect.

• Participant asked if the team could elaborate on the treatment process for water.

  • D. Reynolds and R. Wai Kei Chiu provided a brief explanation, stating that the water is essentially forced through an oil grit separator for treatment. This led to questions about the number of grid separators and where they’re located.

• E. Thome thanked everyone for their great suggestions and noted they would be added to the tracker. The team will also check in with the architect to see if a presentation can be scheduled for the committee sooner rather than later.

• Participant asked where CN’s permits are coming from.

  • ​D. Reynolds confirmed that the building permits were included in federal approval. However, CN would typically follow provincial building codes.

• Participant asked if there was an update on whether any of CN’s mitigation and environmental programs are having a positive benefit to the area.

  • D. Reynolds says the follow-up programs on their measures are yielding positive results.

  • E. Thome noted that these benefits are outlined in the Annual Report. There is also an opportunity to put these follow-up program results in the next committee newsletter.

 

Project Update

• R. Wai Kei Chiu provided some brief background on the construction update he sent, highlighting the comparison between the wetland restoration photos.

• D. Reynolds asked for an update on the sea lamprey. R. Wai Kei Chiu noted that in the last Annual Report, two sea lampreys were found in the Indian Creek area, prompting DFO to deploy their invasive species division which was successful in eradicating the lampreys.

  • On the subject of invasive species, participant asked if the team had seen any phragmites in the area.

  • R. Wai Kei Chiu answered that there is a list of species the team is monitoring with phragmites being the most abundant.

• D. Reynolds pointed out on the schedule that Lower Baseline Road is on track to open early July, perhaps even ahead of schedule.

  • M. Loureiro confirmed paving is due to start soon and electrical infrastructure installation is underway.

​

Other Business

• E. Thome brought up the frequency of meetings and noted that in one-on-one conversations with committee members, it was found that Thursdays don’t work for many people and the meetings will be rescheduled to Wednesdays. Given the rhythm of the project, ET proposes moving the official schedule to quarterly with informal touch bases in between.

• E. Thome continued to say that into 2027, the committee will start to deal with issues like construction noise and visuals. Once the project moves into operations, the reporting out will look different (i.e., what will air quality monitoring reporting look like?).

• T. Flynn confirmed that the next meeting will be August 5th with a site tour in October and another meeting in November.

• Participant asked if there were measures in place to deter graffiti on the project site and asked if there is a possibility of adding landscaping to items like retaining walls to discourage vandalism.

  • D. Reynolds suggested murals with the committee enthusiastically agreeing.

• Participants asked if there was an opportunity for Indigenous participation at any sort of opening ceremony/ribbon cuttings.

  • D. Reynolds confirmed that CN works with the 3 impacted First Nations surrounding the project. All 3 Nations have archeological monitors on site and have been engaged throughout the process. There certainly is an opportunity for them to participate if they wish. D. Reynolds and T. Flynn noted that although the committee used to have a representative from the Huron Wendat Nation, many Nations choose not to participate directly on the committee because CN is in direct consultation/communication with them.

• Participant asks if the next site tour can be later in the day.

  • E. Thome noted that daylight is an issue in the fall although summer site tours could start later.

​

Adjournment

• T. Flynn called for a motion to adjourn (provided by N. Mott) and it was unanimously approved.