Dear Editor,
I want to begin by acknowledging and thanking the many residents, organizations, and councils who took the time to participate in the federal review of the proposed TC Energy pumped storage project. According to the compiled indices of submissions, roughly 200 of more than 320 submissions were classified as opposing the project outright, with approximately another 90 raising significant concerns. That level of engagement was extraordinary, and it was absolutely the right thing to do.
It is worth noting that the federal process does not ask people to vote “for” or “against” a project. Submissions were categorized after the fact based on how concerns were expressed. In many cases — including my own — submissions classified as “concerns” reflected substantive objections to the project, even if they did not use explicit yes-or-no language. The numbers therefore reflect broad public engagement and risk awareness, not a simple tally of support.
Those submissions are now part of the public record. They mattered. They compelled the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) to formally summarize the key issues raised — including concerns about fish habitat, groundwater, contamination, federal lands, Indigenous rights, accident risk, and community impacts — and to require TC Energy to respond.
That is where the process now stands. As long as TC Energy continues to pursue a pumped storage project, they are entitled to respond to the issues identified by IAAC, and the Agency will assess the credibility of those responses. At a later stage, IAAC may or may not determine that a full federal Impact Assessment is required.
What this process has shown is something important: public participation does not end once submissions are filed. Engagement matters because it creates accountability. As long as the project remains active, citizens play a vital role by questioning claims, asking whether proposed mitigation measures are supported by proper studies, pressing for independent or peer-reviewed analysis, and ensuring that assurances are backed by evidence rather than assertion.
Large infrastructure projects do not resolve themselves. They are tested over time through sustained, informed scrutiny. The progress that has been made so far happened because people showed up. What happens next will depend on whether that engagement continues.
Thank you to everyone who took part. Your participation was meaningful — and it remains essential.
Pat Zita, Meaford
