Listen to the deserters | The Press

When energy expert Pierre-Olivier Pineau slammed the door of the committee responsible for advising the Quebec government on climate change issues, everything was done to describe the affair as a conflict of personalities which should above all not raise deeper questions.

Last week, we learned that two other very high caliber scientists, Catherine Morency (transport) and Catherine Potvin (ecology), are in turn leaving the ship, criticizing both the committee itself and the way whose opinions are welcomed by the government¹.

Reaction to this news leaked by 98.5?

“I don’t see a problem with it,” scientist Alain Webster, president of the climate change advisory committee, told me.

“The two departures in question are not problems,” Quebec Environment Minister Benoit Charette repeated to me.

The song Blowin’ in the Windby Bob Dylan, came to mind. “How many times can a man turn his head and pretend he saw nothing?” »

Both Mr. Charette and Mr. Webster tried to downplay the recent departures by emphasizing that the professors’ terms had ended and that they had simply decided not to renew them.

Except that Catherine Morency and Catherine Potvin don’t leave saying “it was extraordinary, thank you, everyone, and see you next time”. They criticize. Pretending not to hear them is a curious reflex.

In his departure letter, M^me Potvin clearly speaks of a “resignation”. She believes that “the committee lacks teeth” and that “its impact remains negligible”.

“Quebec needs a Committee that pushes forward to proclaim this emergency [climatique]. This is not the case and I therefore decided to continue my involvement differently,” she writes.

“We need to be more impactful, we need to be more reactive. For that, you need to be better equipped. The committee does not have the means to always react when it should,” Catherine Morency also told me.

She gives me the example of the third link, about which the Climate Change Advisory Committee has remained silent. Professor Morency would have liked to contribute to the debate.

“I think we censor ourselves. […] When I send a message, I don’t consider it my job to ensure that it is politically acceptable,” she says.

These comments are very similar to those that Pierre-Olivier Pineau made when he slammed the door.

M^me Morency also wonders why, when 43% of Quebec’s emissions come from the transport sector, the committee has not yet looked into passenger transport in three years of existence. A notice on heavy transport has been published, but never on the travel of individuals. The minister did not seek advice on this matter. The committee has the freedom to explore other topics of its choosing, but did not do so in this case. President Alain Webster tells me that an opinion on transport is on the agenda, but we must admit that it comes terribly late.

Minister Charette insists on recalling that 10 of the 12 members renewed their mandate. It’s true. There are still plenty of quality people on this committee, including Alain Bourque, Annie Levasseur and Jérôme Dupras. This is also the case of President Alain Webster, a specialist in environmental economics who, remember, manages everything on a voluntary basis. No committee member receives a salary.

Except that Pierre-Olivier Pineau, Catherine Morency and Catherine Potvin are not exactly people who can be replaced by the first person who comes along.

We are talking about three research chair holders who are authorities in their respective fields. These people had agreed to put their rare and precious expertise at the service of the public. Seeing them leave bitter and dissatisfied should worry us.

The big question now is what can be done to make this committee more effective and more influential.

It is reassuring to know that Alain Webster is thinking about it. “Strategic planning” is underway, he tells me.

The other issue is the receipt of notices by the government. When the advisory committee recommended introducing a mileage tax on heavy transport (not cars), it didn’t take 24 hours for the government to reject the idea.

“We must accept the idea that it is a consultative committee and not a decision-making one,” argues Alain Webster. Okay. But when scientists don’t feel like they have more influence within a committee supposed to have the minister’s ear than they do with their usual platforms, they slam the door.

In an interview with me, Catherine Morency proposed a mechanism by which the government should respond in writing to each of the committee’s recommendations to explain what it intends to do with them. We see this in the Auditor General’s reports, in particular. The idea is excellent. Alain Webster is also open to following up on the recommendations to see what the government has done with them.

The media are also being questioned. The members of the committee believe that their opinions have received too little attention.

One might have the impression that journalists are shining the spotlight on the squabbles within the climate change advisory committee simply for the sake of controversy. It goes way beyond that. The window for reducing our emissions is narrowing dangerously. It was hoped that an advisory committee of scientists would push the government to act decisively, basing its decisions on science.

“We created a committee. Maybe we should listen to it,” Harmonium sang (more or less). We should also listen to the deserters who believe that this committee is not fully playing its role.

1. Listen to “Two Scientists Slam the Door of the Climate Change Committee” (98.5)

What do you think? Participate in the dialogue