On Monday, Meaford council voted to disband the Pumped Storage Advisory Committee (PSAC). It was a narrow 4-3 vote that came after a roughly hour-long discussion in the council chamber, and I think council has made a mistake.
Deputy Mayor Shirley Keaveney brought the motion forward for council’s consideration. In her motion, Keaveney called for PSAC to be “immediately dissolved so as not to conflict with the IAAC process which is now the formal avenue for public participation as it relates to the proposed TC Energy Pumped Storage project.”
It is true that the IAAC impact assessment process will soon get underway, however I think that the Pumped Storage Advisory Committee and the Impact Assessment process can, and should, co-exist.
No matter where you might stand on the pumped storage issue, I think it is wise to have a council advisory committee for the duration of the current process: during construction, and even after the facility is built should the project be allowed to move forward.
The environmental and safety concerns have been shouted from the roof-tops by opponents of the project for the past six years, and those concerns certainly need to be acknowledged and addressed during the impact assessment process, but there are many concerns about the project that won’t necessarily be part of the impact assessment, issues that will impact us locally, and that will be part of the community discussion for years to come.
We’re talking about a multi-billion dollar project, that if it moves forward could bring several years of frustration during the construction phase, including a significant increase in the amount of large trucks and heavy equipment travelling on our local roads, an estimated influx of some 1,800 workers (along with some of their families), and a host of other issues that come along with such an enormous project.
From a public relations perspective, I think the decision to disband the committee will not rest well with many, which could further erode the little trust that many today have in all levels of government.
To many, the very existence of the committee provided a sense of comfort in an often confusing and uncomfortable, not to mention lengthy, process. The committee also gives some a sense of reassurance that, aside from the seven members of council, there is an additional volunteer body that can be tasked with any number of projects in order to advise council. As well, the committee provided an additional opportunity to engage in the process, to voice their opinions, or simply to listen and learn.
This is a project of almost unimaginable size and proportion; it is unlike anything this, or most other communities have ever seen, and the more eyeballs we have scouring the details, the more opportunities for the community to engage, and the more channels of communication, the better, in my humble opinion.
Remember, for many Meaford residents the pumped storage issue has been top of mind for the past six years, and yet the real meat of the process is only about to begin, and it will be a few more years before the impact assessment is complete. Should the project ultimately move forward, we will have several more years of the construction phase. If the facility is ultimately built, by the time it begins operation this will have been a hot topic in our community for nearly 15 years: that’s half a generation.
The committee has value not just for those who oppose the project, but for those who support it, or are undecided.
The PSAC could be helpful in researching any number of things related to the pumped storage proposal in order to provide council with additional insight, while at the same time the committee can hear from residents about new concerns that will no doubt surface once the process is officially underway.
Whatever the terms of reference or the scope of the committee was before council voted to disband it, they can be changed by council at any time. Why not revise the scope, or amend the terms of reference, rather than dissolving a committee that many were happy existed?
In her motion the Deputy Mayor notes that the “role of the IAAC is to review major projects to support sustainable development, protect the environment, and uphold the rights of Indigenous Peoples, with an emphasis on collaboration and meaningful participation,” and she suggested that “the Pumped Storage Advisory Committee be immediately dissolved so as not to conflict with the IAAC process which is now the formal avenue for public participation as it relates to the proposed TC Energy Pumped Storage project.”
But what is the harm of continuing with the Pumped Storage Advisory Committee? It isn’t as though the committee would conflict with the IAAC process, and with as little influence and control that this municipality has over this proposal, the advisory committee is a crucial local filter for information and suggestions and recommendations to council.
While it is true that, as a term of council winds down, council advisory committees are traditionally disbanded, and the next elected council can choose what if any advisory committees they would like to have formed for their term of council, but I think the pumped storage issue is a big enough issue, massive actually, to warrant the continuation of the committee into the next term of council, and likely the next after that.
The impact assessment conducted by the IAAC won’t delve into things like how this community would prepare itself for an influx of workers, or the impact of massive trucks and equipment tearing up our roads for several years, nor will it provide a bridge between residents and council as does the advisory committee.
Concerns about home insurance coverage and real estate values for those living in close proximity to the proposed location of the facility could also be explored by PSAC; the IAAC process won’t be looking at such things.
With as little as can be controlled or influenced by our local council, the Pumped Storage Advisory Committee is at least a body that can explore and advise on the few areas where this municipality does have some control.
Even with the arguments that were made for the disbanding of the committee, in the notes I prepared over the weekend for writing this editorial I asked, as did Councillor Brandon Forder at Monday’s council meeting, what harm does it cause to keep it operating?
The discussion at council on Monday about pumped storage-related issues made it even more clear to me that there is an important role for PSAC as the process moves forward, if only to be the body that can help to sift through all of the information that will be generated during the impact assessment process, as they continue to offer ideas and advice to this, and the next council.
So I am saddened that council has voted to disband the Pumped Storage Advisory Committee, though I hope that when the new council is installed later this year, they will see the value in it, and bring it back.
