In Quebec, we need to tell ourselves the truth in order to succeed in the essential energy transition.
And when it came to speaking his mind, Minister Pierre Fitzbiggon had an innate talent. Wooden language, I don’t know! Few politicians allow themselves to say what they think, without regard to the party line, without worrying about displeasing the voters. He did.
His premature departure is regrettable. First, because Pierre Fitzgibbon is leaving Bill 69, which will redesign Quebec’s energy strategy, in the lurch, nothing less. Second, because we wonder who within the Coalition avenir Québec (CAQ) will have enough guts to express inconvenient truths, with the same frankness as Mr. Fitzgibbon.
Just last week, he dared to say that there would be “significant increases” in Hydro-Québec rates within five to ten years, while Premier François Legault insists on capping the annual increase in residential rates at 3% in a totally arbitrary manner. In the meantime, power outages are increasing due to the lack of maintenance of Hydro-Québec’s outdated network.
And God knows where the money will come from to finance the state corporation’s action plan, which will require a modest sum of 155 to 185 billion by 2035.
Last May, Minister Fitzgibbon also said that gasoline taxes should be increased… before saying that it was a joke. It would make perfect sense, if only to repair our potholed roads and to give a boost to the shift toward electric vehicles, as highlighted in a study by the Chair in Taxation and Public Finance at the University of Sherbrooke.1.
Speaking of vehicles, Pierre Fitzgibbon did not hesitate to say last year that the number of vehicles on the roads would have to be halved for Quebec to be carbon neutral by 2050… knowing full well that the CAQ has no objective of reducing the vehicle fleet. On the contrary, the government has relaunched its project for a third highway link in Quebec City, even though a study by the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec confirmed that there is no need for it.
All these delicate issues are at the heart of the vast energy transition project that awaits Quebec. Instead of wilfully blinding ourselves, it is time to talk to each other in the eye, by inviting the general public to a real societal debate, open and transparent.
On this, Pierre Fitzgibbon was not a top of the class. His lack of transparency will remain as a liability on his balance sheet. We saw it with the Northvolt battery plant project that went ahead without public consultations. We also saw it with his decision to centralize in the minister’s office the decisions to offer electricity, or not, to industrial projects requiring high power.
That said, it is not too late to organize real meetings on the energy transition. A collective discussion is essential to raise awareness among the population about the crucial choices and to build a new social pact on energy. Acceptability is built upstream. Not by pushing decisions down citizens’ throats at the last minute.
Many questions arise.
How much are we prepared to change our energy consumption? Bill 69 opens the door to rate modulation to encourage consumption outside peak periods. That’s great. But it will take more than just running our dishwasher at midnight, as Minister Fitzgibbon has already said.
How are we going to produce the energy to supply our growing needs? With dams that distort rivers? Nuclear power that poses safety risks? Wind turbines that spoil the landscape? If no one wants projects in their backyard, we might as well forget our GHG reduction targets.
Do we want to continue to attract large industrial companies with discounted electricity? The argument of job creation no longer has the same weight as it did when the government had to combat high unemployment. In a context of labor shortage, we must prioritize projects that have real added value.
Who will pay the bill? Currently, households pay only 86% of the real cost of their electricity, while businesses cover 134% of the cost. Because of this invisible subsidy, households are not making the crucial choices to use energy more efficiently.
With all these questions hanging in the balance, it is disappointing to see Pierre Fitzgibbon leave. The study of his Bill 69 will begin next week, without him. It is as if he had started the renovation of the house, only to abandon the plans.
We must have the courage to finish the project. Without dodging the inconvenient truths.
1. Consult the study by the Chair in Taxation and Public Finance at the University of Sherbrooke