Dear Editor,
In his recent letter, Bruce Mason suggests that voters should place little weight on candidates’ positions regarding the proposed Pumped Storage Project because the project is located on federal lands and Meaford Council has limited authority over its outcome.
Before voters accept that advice, they may wish to consider Mr. Mason’s record on this issue.
Earlier this year, in his “Smoke and Mirrors” letter, Mr. Mason argued that project opponents had been criticizing an “imaginary” project and assured readers that “the actual proposal is now available in the IAAC formal documents” and that “the real TCE proposal became available to all of us at the same time. February 26, 2026.“
Yet the federal departments reviewing those submissions reached a different conclusion.
According to the information submitted by TC Energy, it was insufficient to reasonably assess potential impacts on military operations and infrastructure without a more fulsome project design. DND identified numerous areas requiring additional information, including operational impacts, communications systems, transmission infrastructure, stormwater management, drinking-water protection, accidents and malfunctions, and emergency planning. Similarly, Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans advised that there was insufficient information to assess potential impacts on fish, fish habitat, aquatic ecosystems, water withdrawals, intake structures, and associated construction activities, and requested significant additional project details. These were not isolated observations. Similar advice records were submitted by seven other federal departments and agencies affected by the proposal, many of which identified the need for additional information, clarification, further study, or future review before impacts could be properly assessed.
These are not the opinions of activists. They are the observations of the federal agencies responsible for reviewing the project.
The issue was never whether TC Energy submitted documents. Clearly it did. The issue is whether those submissions contained sufficient design information to allow independent experts to properly assess the project. According to federal reviewers, significant information gaps remained.
In one respect, I agree with Mr. Mason. The public appears to have been debating an “imaginary” project. The difference is that this uncertainty was not created by project critics. For seven years, TC Energy promoted the project through websites, brochures, advertising campaigns, coffee chats, public meetings, council presentations, and stakeholder consultations. Municipalities debated it, Indigenous communities reviewed it, and the public was asked to form opinions about it. Yet Mr. Mason now tells us that the “actual proposal” only became available through the IAAC filing on February 26, 2026. If that is true, then the question is not why critics misunderstood the project, but why communities were asked to evaluate and respond to a project that had not yet been fully defined. The public did not invent the project description. It came from TC Energy’s own communications. Ironically, years later, Mr. Mason continues to assure readers that concerns are misplaced, despite the fact that a complete project design has yet to be publicly disclosed and federal reviewers continued to identify significant information gaps after the IAAC submission.
Mr. Mason’s criticism therefore raises two uncomfortable questions. If the “actual proposal” was finally revealed on February 26, 2026, why did federal reviewers continue to request fundamental design information afterward? And if the project’s impacts extend far beyond the boundaries of the military base, why should voters accept Mr. Mason’s repeated suggestion that Meaford Council has little role to play?
Meaford is the recognized host municipality. The project requires major transmission infrastructure, intake and discharge facilities in Georgian Bay, use of municipal roads during construction, and management of noise, vibration, dust, traffic, and other community impacts. Council may not possess final approval authority, but it has both a responsibility and a duty to represent the interests of residents affected by the project.
Mr. Mason was certain that the February 26, 2026 filing would reveal the “actual proposal.” Federal reviewers subsequently concluded that significant information gaps remained. Readers may wish to consider whether his current advice to voters deserves any more confidence than that prediction.
Before accusing others of misinformation, Mr. Mason should answer those questions.
Sarcasm is not evidence. Ridicule is not analysis. And certainty is not proof.
Sincerely,
Pat Zita, Meaford
