Dear Editor,
The Department of National Defence (DND) is currently conducting an environmental effects determination for the relocation of military infrastructure at the Meaford Training Centre — infrastructure that would only need to be moved if TC Energy’s Pumped Storage Project (PSP) proceeds.
At the same time, the PSP itself remains in the early planning phase of the federal Impact Assessment process. No impact statement has been submitted. No impact assessment has begun. No federal decision has been made.
This raises an obvious question: why is the federal government assessing the impacts and costs of relocating military infrastructure for a project that has not yet been approved?
DND’s current assessment is not about whether the Pumped Storage Project should occur. That question has already been assumed in principle. Instead, the focus is on how to move infrastructure if the project proceeds — effectively treating relocation as a foregone conclusion while the main project remains under review.
This fragmented approach may be procedurally permissible, but it defies common sense. A dependent project is being assessed in isolation, ahead of a decision on the parent project that would make it necessary.
For members of the public trying to engage in good faith, this sequencing is confusing and undermines confidence in the process. Environmental impacts, costs, and risks should be evaluated transparently and as a whole — not in pieces that only make sense once approval is assumed.
If democratic processes are to be meaningful, they must not only follow the rules, but also follow logic.
Pat Zita, Meaford
