Dear Mr. Vance,
In response to concerns about the serious threats to the human health and local ecosystems posed by their proposed pumped storage project, TC Energy frequently claims, “The federal impact assessment process will address any environmental risks.” This line is often echoed by local officials in Meaford, Owen Sound, and Grey County. But should we believe it?
The truth is, the federal Impact Assessment Act (IAA) and its application to projects like this one are far more complex than they appear. Can we really rely on this process to protect the delicate Georgian Bay and Niagara Escarpment ecosystems? Will it safeguard our drinking water, protect fish habitats, prevent ecosystem disruption, or preserve the quality of Georgian Bay?
We got some answers—albeit unsettling ones—at the November 14th presentation by Grant Jensen and Wayne Sawtell from the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) to the Meaford Pumped Storage Advisory Committee. Here’s what they revealed:
The first step is determining whether an Impact Assessment (AI) is even required. It’s not guaranteed in the Impact Assessment Act (IAA), and is especially questionable after the Supreme Court recently ruled parts of the Act that govern the Impact Assessment (IA) process unconstitutional, sending it back for revisions.
If an Impact Assessment is deemed necessary, the project proponent—TC Energy—would be responsible for preparing an ‘Impact Statement’, a document which is supposed to identify potential risks and propose mitigation measures. Wait, what? Yes, TC Energy, not the federal government, would assess the risks, determine their significance, and recommend how to mitigate them.
And it gets worse. If you’re imagining independent government studies, think again. TC Energy would conduct its own environmental studies, analyze the results, and then send its potentially partial findings off to Ottawa for a desktop review.
What’s more, we learned that federal Impact Assessments have very narrow limits. It only looks at impacts to federally recognized interests – like migratory birds, fish habitats, and Indigenous Peoples – but it does not consider local issues (like drinking water contamination, noise, and dust), or broader public health concerns (such as CO2 emissions caused by traffic and construction or leaching of existing soil contamination).
When asked whether impacts to “all humans” are considered by the impact assessment, Mr. Jensen confirmed that “health impacts to Indigenous Peoples” are within the federal jurisdiction, but “based on the provisions in the Act, that does not include human health at large.”
As Mr. Jensen explained, the health of the broader public or local ecosystems is typically left to provincial jurisdiction. Given the Ford government’s track record on environmental protections – the Greenbelt scandal, Highway 413, and Ontario Place – we know how much that’s worth!
This raises serious questions about the federal review’s ability to provide the type of protection some may envision. If TC Energy is responsible for identifying and mitigating its own impacts, how can we be sure of an objective process? And given the IAAC’s narrow scope, it’s clear that the full range of risks can not be properly addressed by the Agency.
It’s time we stop hiding behind the false assurance that the federal impact assessment process will protect our communities, our health, and our environment.
On behalf of all those who advocate for a better solution,
Kellie Haslam
Director, Save Georgian Bay
Meaford, Ontario
