Dear Editor,
On July 27, Meaford Council will consider a three-year Pre-Development Agreement with TC Energy that could provide up to $4.065 million in funding through community support payments, municipal capacity funding, scholarships, and community investment funding.
Supporters of the agreement argue that Meaford should secure these funds while the Ontario Pumped Storage Project undergoes environmental review. Yet Council’s own report acknowledges that too many unknowns remain to negotiate a long-term Community Benefit Agreement. If the project is not sufficiently defined to establish its impacts, how can it be sufficiently defined to establish fair compensation?
The Municipality’s report states that negotiations on a long-term Community Benefit Agreement were postponed because both the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) and Department of National Defence (DND) review processes remain in their early stages and because important project details are still unknown.
Yet the feasibility work currently underway is intended to determine the scope, design, infrastructure requirements, and impacts of the proposed project.
The purpose of drilling, engineering studies, environmental assessments, and design work is to identify what infrastructure may ultimately be required, where it may be located, and what impacts it may have on surrounding communities. Until that work is complete, neither Council nor the public knows whether the project will require construction staging areas, worker accommodations, material storage sites, concrete production facilities, road upgrades, shoreline infrastructure, utility expansions, or other supporting facilities.
Some of these facilities may be located on federal lands. Others may not.
The Municipality already possesses mechanisms to recover legitimate project-related costs. The report notes that Meaford currently invoices TC Energy for project-related expenses and receives reimbursement through an established cost-recovery process.
Municipal staff time, engineering reviews, inspections, road-use assessments, traffic management, emergency planning, and other services can be invoiced through established cost-recovery processes as those costs arise. If TC Energy requires additional municipal resources during the feasibility phase, those costs can be identified, documented, and recovered through transparent municipal processes.
The purpose of the current environmental assessment is to determine the project’s actual municipal footprint and identify what infrastructure, approvals, mitigation measures, and oversight may ultimately be required. Until that process is complete, many of the project’s potential costs and impacts remain uncertain.
This raises a fundamental question: If Council does not yet know the project’s municipal footprint, future service demands, infrastructure requirements, or mitigation costs, on what basis can it determine whether $4.065 million represents fair compensation?
TC Energy required agreements and permissions simply to gain access to federal lands for its investigation work. As project planning progresses, additional permits, approvals, inspections, road-use arrangements, and municipal services may be required depending on where project infrastructure is ultimately located.
The public has not yet seen a final project design. As a result, residents do not know what municipal costs may arise, what mitigation measures may be required, or what opportunities may exist for the Municipality to recover costs through ordinary municipal processes.
For most development projects, municipalities first review the plans, identify infrastructure impacts, determine permitting requirements, assess costs, and then establish appropriate conditions and fees. In this case, Council is being asked to negotiate compensation before many of those questions have been answered.
Residents are not being asked to oppose the project. They are being asked to trust that a compensation package negotiated today will adequately address impacts that may not become fully known for several years.
Good governance requires information before negotiation, not after. Complete the environmental assessment. Determine the project’s full municipal footprint. Identify the costs, services, approvals, and mitigation measures that may be required. Then negotiate compensation from a position of knowledge rather than uncertainty.
Until then, Meaford risks negotiating compensation before it knows what it is being compensated for.
Pat Zita, Meaford
