Dear Editor,
It’s starting to look like Save Georgian Bay (SGB) will run candidates for Meaford Council in 2026 with hopes of taking control of Council. Some members on Council may look at running for re-election as Save Georgian Bay “approved” candidates too.
Mr. Pat Maloney raised the grim choice facing Meaford Council members who dare to run for re-election without first committing to Save Georgian Bay’s “approved” platform.
Mr. Maloney caught my attention with that comment.
So, I thought, fair’s fair. Let’s look at what SGB supporting candidates, including current Council members who believe wooing SGB’s supporters will help more than it hurts them get re-elected, would be running on? Because it will surely hurt all of them.
What could Meaford expect based on past statements, websites, social media, and recent letters?
For purposes of this discussion, I’ll refer to that future election platform as the Factually Challenged Platform. FCP for short.
The Ontario Government ordered the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) to contract for 3000MW of energy storage. The Ontario Government knows the difference between storage of electricity and generation of electricity. They ordered storage. Opponents of Meaford’s 1000MW pumped storage proposal have insisted for years Ontario should just buy excess hydro from Quebec or Manitoba. That’s generated hydro. Not stored electricity already here for when we need it. Their hydro isn’t what Ontario wants. It’s not what Ontario ordered.
Manitoba Hydro and Quebec both say they have firm commitments to sell their excess hydro already. They’re already struggling to provide enough for their own future growth. Currently Quebec is a net importer of hydro. (Probably best if the IESO does what Ontario ordered on that one.)
The Fact Challenged Platform will probably still call for Ontario to be at the mercy of two suppliers challenged by meeting their own existing commitments with foreseeable inability to service new industry at home. The FCP will call for Ontario to rely on non-existent “excess” hydro.
Under former Chairman Joe Oliver, the IESO ignored pumped storage’s projected economic benefits and its 50-100 years of CO2 reductions. Oliver, who the Ontario Clean Air Alliance described as “a notorious climate denier appointed by the Ford government”, wanted new or expanded natural gas burning plants. Not renewable generation combined with energy storage. The IESO didn’t reject the Meaford project “as having no value to Ontario” twice. They can’t. If IESO could, they wouldn’t still be working on it now, would they? Wouldn’t they be done?
IESO’s customer ordered them to properly evaluate storage and renewables for the third time. This time with a replacement Chairman in place. With clear instructions to include economic benefits from the Minister of Energy.
The FCP will probably continue to include “the IESO has twice rejected the project as having no value to Ontario.” though.
What’s all that about economic benefits then?
An independent study funded by TCE found that pumped storage offers greater job creation and social benefits in Canada because its supply chains are mainly domestic, while Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) rely mainly on overseas sourcing. The report (the CANCEA study) found that opting for batteries instead would provide $3.2 billion lower GDP gains, provide 24,000 fewer jobs, and 63% lower tax revenues in Ontario. The net benefit to us Canucks by going with TCE’s Meaford Pumped Storage proposal would be equivalent to $3.5 billion. (Those are all the bits IESO isn’t supposed to ignore this time.)
The Factually Challenged Platform will probably still say that batteries are “better”. The FCP will call for Canada to miss out on billions of economic benefits and thousands of jobs. It will call for that money and those jobs to be sent overseas to non-Canucks. Instead of creating good paying jobs in Canada, Ontario, and Meaford. Just so we can get FCP batteries.
It’s beginning to look like a Factually Challenged Platform will be as “Elbows Down!” as it can possibly get, isn’t it?
The Factually Challenged Platform will commit to preventing every one of us in Meaford from benefiting from up to $75,000,000 over time of badly needed funding from the Community Benefit Agreement TCE and Meaford are working towards. There will be no plan to replace that $75,000,000 of benefits to Meaford in the FCP should they succeed.
The Factually Challenged Platform may even contain a commitment to go on more facility tours. To facilities the likes of which absolutely no one is proposing to build in Meaford. Facilities Meaford would receive zero benefits from at all. Why would Meaford Council tour a battery (BESS) facility? No one’s proposing to build one of those here. The FCP probably won’t say.
The best way to ensure you get a bad government is to stock it with “single issue” candidates. People who don’t care how much you have to give up – the things that are good for you, your family, your town, and your country – if it means they get the one thing they want to have happen most of all.
We should all remember that if we see even a hint that a new candidate or an incumbent running for re-election embraces a Factually Challenged Platform.
Bruce Mason, Meaford
