The executive director of the Atlantic Wildlife Institute is renewing his call for federal Environment Minister Julie Dabrusin to order a comprehensive review of the proposed 500 MW gas/diesel plant near Centre Village.
“We’re asking her to do her job,” Barry Rothfuss said Thursday during a telephone interview.
“Right now, we have, in my view, an illegal environmental assessment taking place in the province of New Brunswick,” he added.
“The province does not have any jurisdiction in transboundary issues like this. It is purely federal jurisdiction here,” said Rothfuss who also speaks for the Protect the Chignecto Isthmus Coalition that includes more than two-dozen organizations opposed to the gas plant.
In September 2025, the federal Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) concluded that no further review of the project was needed even though the agency had received 270 public comments raising concerns about the gas plant’s potential effects on wildlife, human health and the environment.
Health effects
Rothfuss says the IAAC decision came before PROENERGY, the American company that would build and operate the plant, released a health study showing that emissions from the gas plant would directly affect Amherst and the areas around it in Cumberland County.
He points to a table showing levels of nitrogen dioxide that are nearly three times higher than federal air quality standards and levels of fine particulate matter or microscopic soot particles that also exceed federal standards.
According to Health Canada, long-term exposure to low levels of nitrogen dioxide can increase the risks for breathing problems that include coughing and wheezing while worsening the effects of asthma, airborne allergies and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Health Canada also warns that fine particulate matter is most dangerous for children with asthma, older adults or people with underlying breathing or heart problems.
“These are their own figures I’m referring to,” Rothfuss says about the health study that PROENERGY commissioned.
He adds that the current environmental impact assessment (EIA) that New Brunswick is conducting stops at the provincial border.
“Only the federal government has the authority to deal with this from both sides of the border and so it’s critical to protect people’s welfare by making sure that the system represents the interests of the communities on either side.”
Water dangers
Rothfuss says PROENERGY’s extraction of water from a wellfield that may be shared between the provinces could also cause problems in Amherst where the town has spent millions upgrading its water systems since 2018.
“Yes, they’re going down below the actual wellfield and pulling the brackish water from beneath it, but that creates a lot of concerns in dealing with contamination and other things into the well table,” Rothfuss says.
“On top of that, they’re pulling out the brackish water and then treating it through a reverse osmosis system once they get it out of the ground.”
Last month, NB Power Vice President Brad Coady told Tantramar council that PROENERGY is now planning to truck the wastewater from the site, possibly to a disposal facility in Halifax.
“This is a very dangerous contaminant byproduct that is going to be produced on virtually a daily basis,” Rothfuss says.
“It means that these contaminant trucks are going to be moving out of the gas plant and down our road systems and potentially into Nova Scotia road systems as well and that creates an unprecedented type of hazard to our community,” he adds.
“It’s not only that the material could potentially spill,” he says, “but you’re also going to have heavy truck movement continuously through the area and it’s going to wear on our roads.”
Indigenous issues
In addition to potential health and water effects in Nova Scotia, Rothfuss points to the lack of consultation with Indigenous communities.
“We are impacting Mi’kmaq territorial rights on the Nova Scotia side of the border,” he says. “They have the same rights on that side of the border as we have on this side of the border and both communities have to be brought to the table here. In that particular sense, this is clearly not a one-province issue, it’s a transboundary issue.”
On August 10th, Rothfuss e-mailed a detailed letter calling on Beauséjour’s member of Parliament Dominic LeBlanc to review the evidence and co-ordinate with the federal environment minister to order a comprehensive review of the gas plant project.
The letter suggests that if the federal government fails to honour its constitutional obligations to review transboundary health and environmental issues as well as its duty to consult Indigenous communities, Protect the Chignecto Isthmus Coalition could take the matter to the Federal Court of Canada for judicial review.
“In this particular instance, their legal responsibility is clear,” Rothfuss says. “This is their jurisdiction, and they’re choosing to ignore it, they’re choosing to turn a blind eye.”
Federal reaction
Samantha Bayard, a spokesperson for federal Environment Minister Julie Dabrusin responded to a Warktimes e-mail seeking the minister’s comments saying the request “is best suited to our colleagues at Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC).”
Anna Pittas, a media relations officer with IAAC wrote that “federal impact assessments are limited to major projects that are likely to have adverse effects in federal jurisdiction as defined in the Impact Assessment Act.”
She added that the IAAC’s assessment last year concluded that no further assessment was needed and the effects of the project within federal jurisdiction “would be limited or addressed through existing federal and provincial legislative and regulatory frameworks.”
She also sent a link to the IAAC decision last September.
Gabriel Brunet, senior communications advisor to Beauséjour MP Dominic LeBlanc said Chris Zhou, director of communications for Environment Minister Dabrusin would respond to Warktimes’s request for comment.
Zhou e-mailed to say that the comment from the IAAC (see above) would be the response.
To read CHMA coverage of this story, click here.

























Commentary: The tricky world of misrepresentation — gas plant edition
By Logan Atkinson, Seniors for Climate — Tantramar
Pixabay Pinocchio image created by iffany
Children have a wonderfully efficient way of getting to the heart of the matter. “Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!” If a peer steps outside the recognized moral order, then there’s no need for debate, reflection, appeals and counter-appeals. Instead, the kids go directly to their own system of justice – chants, ridicule, humiliation and, ultimately, banishment to the far reaches of the playground.
Rough justice? Perhaps. But effective? Almost certainly.
In the world of adult discourse, however, to accuse someone of lying is a business fraught with risk. Instead, we tend towards “misrepresentation” as the safer accusation. After all, a statement might be made innocently, without knowledge that it’s untrue. Perhaps it’s made negligently, made without checking the facts carefully enough. Or, in some cases, a misrepresentation might be fraudulent, made with the intent to deceive and to exact some advantage.
This last is the lie.
For over a year now, the proponents (NB Power and PROENERGY) of the Centre Village fossil-fuel plant in Tantramar have been accused of misrepresentation by members of the public fighting against the project. The subjects of concern have been many: water usage, operating times, the need for more power, emissions levels, the economic implications. And on and on.
Are the alleged misrepresentations innocent? Are they negligent? Or are they lies, made with the intent to deceive the public and to exact some advantage, perhaps support for the project among citizens-at-large?
Indigenous investment claim
At the beginning, the Centre Village project proponents claimed that they had secured an equity investment from Indigenous investors. This is important and merits greater scrutiny. We can start with the proponents’ filing with the New Brunswick environmental impact assessment agency, dated July 4, 2025.
In section 2 on page 4, you will see the following representation:
There it is, in black and white. The proponent is holding out to the provincial regulator, and to the public, that the NSMTC has invested in the project.
The proponents were required to file something similar with the federal Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. This document is also dated July 4, 2025, and in section 2, page 1, it says:
It’s less clear here that NSMTC is represented as an equity investor in the Project, although that’s safe to assume given that NSMTC is being held out as a signatory to the tolling agreement.
But any ambiguity is removed further along, in section 4 on page 4, where we find this:
Public info sessions
To this point at least, there’s nothing to suggest that the representation of Indigenous investment in the Centre Village project is a misrepresentation. But then proponents held two public information sessions in Tantramar, the first at the Music Barn in Upper Sackville on August 12, 2025, and the second at the Civic Centre in Sackville on August 13th.
One of the display panels at the first public meeting clearly indicated that the North Shore Mi’kmaq Tribal Council was an equity participant, an investor, in the project.
Innocent? Negligent? Fraudulent? Are we yet to the point of “pants on fire?”
At the second public information session, the same display panel appeared, with the same misrepresentation of Indigenous investment. I pointed this out to Mr. Jackson, and asked why the panel hadn’t been corrected to reflect the true state of affairs. He merely smiled in response.
A question and answer session followed. When pressed about the misrepresentation, John MacIsaac (speaking for PROENERGY) said something to the effect that we can’t control what the media say about ownership of the project. But it was pointed out to Mr. MacIsaac that the media are simply repeating what appears in the proponents’ own proposal to the environmental regulators.
After that, Mr. Jackson claimed that the proposal was written as it was (claiming a First Nations’ equity interest instead of the actual option) to make it easier to understand!
At this point, things are getting serious. Was this an admission that the misrepresentation was made with the knowledge that it was false? Are we slipping away from mere innocence or negligence? Is the possibility of fiery pants now too obvious to ignore?
A-G blows the whistle
In case additional evidence were needed about this misrepresentation, the New Brunswick’s Auditor General released his 2026 Annual Report in installments at the end of May and early in June. Volume 2 addressed the Centre Village project, and the misrepresentation about Indigenous investment was succinctly pointed out on page 15:
Then, a bit later in June, Lori Clark, President and CEO of NB Power, testified before the Public Accounts Committee at the New Brunswick legislature, and appeared to deflect responsibility for the misrepresentation back to PROENERGY.
All doubt was removed when Brad Coady, a Vice-President of NB Power, was interviewed following his appearance at Tantramar Municipal Council on July 14th. Mr. Coady confirmed that no Indigenous investment had been made, and went even further, suggesting that such an investment is a nice-to-have, rather than a must-have. Indigenous communities have the opportunity to invest, he said, and that’s good enough. There is no formal regulatory requirement that Indigenous investment be secured.
Maybe Mr. Coady is right. Maybe there’s nothing in the formal law to compel Indigenous partnership in a project like the proposed Centre Village fossil-fuel plant. But is formal law the only mechanism at work here? Is formal law the only basis on which the project proponents might be judged? The evidence is very clear that the question of Indigenous investment in the project has been misrepresented from the very beginning.
Do we really want to play with the American firm PROENERGY, a firm that misrepresents a vital feature of its project, and then over months and months of scrutiny fails to own up to that misrepresentation? Do you think that this misrepresentation is innocent? Negligent? Something worse?
What would the children on the playground say?
How loud might the chants become?
How might they judge the behaviour of PROENERGY?
Do you think PROENERGY would be banished to the farthest reaches of the playground?
Logan Atkinson is a member of Seniors for Climate — Tantramar, scantantramar@gmail.com