PHOTO EDOUARD PLANTE-FRÉCHETTE, THE PRESS
Pierre Fitzgibbon was appointed Minister of Economy and Energy on Thursday, he who has not yet made his mark with his green vision, our editorialist reminds us.
It is difficult to see good signals for the environment in the formation of the new Legault cabinet announced on Thursday.
Posted at 5:00 a.m.
The appointment of Pierre Fitzgibbon as “Super-Minister” of the Economy and Energy raises doubts for the energy transition. It raises the specter of our precious electricity being used as bait for foreign companies rather than being used to decarbonize our economy.
The CEO of Hydro-Quebec, Sophie Brochu, expressed unequivocal fears on this subject, threatening to resign if Quebec became the “Dollarama” of electricity by selling off its energy.
The reappointment of Benoit Charette as head of the Ministry of the Environment is no more pleasing. The environment has been one of the big weak points of the Legault government. Entrusting the ministry to the same captain sends the message that the government does not take note of it and that it intends to continue in the same way.
There is obviously this “committee on energy transition and the economy” that François Legault himself will chair. It will bring together the Ministers of Economy and Energy, Finance, Environment and Relations with First Nations and Inuit. The CEO of Hydro-Québec will also sit there.
Obviously, Mr. Legault wanted to reach out to Ms.me Leaflet. We should be happy about this and hope that this new committee will work.
But let’s not be naive: putting Quebec back on the path to achieving its climate targets will require infinitely more than such a committee.
We are still waiting for a complete plan with targets by sector that leads us to our objectives. The current plan has only identified half of the necessary measures, and more. We know that many of them have never proved their effectiveness.
We are also still waiting for independent monitoring mechanisms capable of measuring progress and proposing ways to rectify the situation.
In short, we expect a complete change of philosophy.
In theory, bringing together the Ministries of Economy and Energy is an excellent idea for steering the energy transition. The catch is that the running back didn’t make his mark with his green vision. Rather, Pierre Fitzgibbon has distinguished himself by attracting companies to us who want to benefit from our clean and cheap electricity.
Currently, these companies are literally jostling at the gate. Current demands reach 15,000 megawatts. That’s ten times the power of the whole Romaine complex!
If our electricity were infinite, we would say: so much the better. Except that is far from the case. Quebec will have to increase its electricity production by 50% by 2050 to carry out its own energy transition. It’s gigantic.
Our megawatts will therefore be fiercely contested over the next few decades. A clash of visions is already being felt.
Sophie Brochu is right to say that we have to ask ourselves some big questions before offering companies rates of 5 cents per kilowatt hour when we know that we then have to develop new electricity projects which cost us at least 11 cents per kilowatt-hour to meet our own needs.
Between exports, business attraction and decarbonization, what use of our electricity generates the greatest economic and environmental benefits? This is what the new energy transition committee chaired by Mr. Legault will have to assess. We guess that the discussions will be difficult.
We will also have to realize in Quebec that the energy transition does not simply consist in electrifying everything and carrying on as before. Achieving a low-carbon society requires reviewing our ways of getting around, of housing, of planning the occupation of the territory.
The CAQ has not yet shown any will to lead these changes. It has done nothing, for example, against the meteoric rise in gas-guzzling vehicles on our roads, the main cause of the increase in GHGs in Quebec. And actions and messages on urban sprawl have been, at best, contradictory.
We hope we are wrong. But looking at the new Council of Ministers, it is difficult to see where the long-awaited changes will come from. Changes that are made every year more and more glaring.