Le Devoir
5 April 2006

Roy Dupuis
Actor and co-president of the Rivers Foundation

Are my questions disturbing?

Since I started to question small hydroelectric power station projects and, more recently, the mega-project for diverting the Rupert river, I have the honour of being the subject of the malevolent attention of some leader-writers, in particular of La Presse and Le Quotidien. More than three times in one month I have been subjected to attacks from leader-writers who have no hesitation in quoting me, even inaccurately.  Have my questions, i.e. those of the Rivers Foundation and other groups, raised issues which one would have preferred to keep hidden?

What exactly am I accused of?

As an artist, for speaking out, for not confining myself to my craft due to my ignorance. Ironically, this message reinforces the most common and contemptuous of stereotypes: look good and keep quiet. A message which would be laughable if it didn’t conceal a pernicious order to artists: that of self-censorship. And the best way to silence any opposition, more effective but also more vicious because it conceals its true name of censure, is to persuade the opponent that he’s an ignoramus, prohibiting dialogue by making fun of him. Self-censorship.

However, do you have to be reminded that an artist is also a citizen who can, like any other citizen, acquire knowledge and a vision of the world which goes beyond his job?

The reason I co-founded and am co-president of the Rivers Foundation is because I know the issues surrounding the development of the rivers of Quebec. And, contrary to what Alain Dubuc (La Presse, April 8, 2006) and Jacques Brassard (Le Quotidien, April 5, 2006) imply in their editorials, the Rivers Foundation is an organisation bringing together not only artists, but also citizens from all over Quebec and specialists in a multitude of disciplines: biology, engineering, energy, environment, law, education and politics.

In fact, what hinders artists from embracing various causes is the fact that they are a mouthpiece without a voice, pitched against all those they tackle in their battle to defend another point of view, against the huge public relations machines with all their resources and disproportionate influence. Without artists, without our capacity to bring other views on crucial social issues to the public domain, these voices would be stifled in the din of spokesmen hired by all manner of developers.

The disturbing questions

What, then, are the issues that I and several other speakers are raising regarding the hydroelectricity development of Quebec and the diversion of the Rupert River? What are these questions that seem to upset certain columnists and leader-writers so much?

The Rivers Foundation considers that the natural resources of state-owned property, be it the forests, water power or wind power, belong to the community. For their usage to be justified and consistent, and for the benefits resulting from their development to help the whole community, it is necessary that their operation and financing come under the jurisdiction of national planning and public control.

Accordingly, the nationalisation of electricity has allowed the integrated development of a hydroelectric power generation complex, complete with huge reservoirs (175 TWh) and a high voltage grid system that is one of the most advanced in the world. This collective investment in hydroelectricity generates increasing annual profits of 2.5 billion dollars per year.

And, from now until 2008-2009, when the power stations currently under construction go live, Hydro-Quebec Production will have annual surpluses (reserves less commitments) for export of between 15 and 20 TWh, which will likely bring in an additional annual income of between $1.5 and $2 billion. Also let us recall that the average cost of production from the existing complex is around 2 ¢/kWh and that its annual capacity will reach approximately 205 TWh from 2008. So much the better, fortunately, that it all belongs to the community and benefits the community.

This public development of the electricity sector was, however, endangered and restricted by various programmes designed for developers of small private barrages, initially up to 25 MW, then 50 MW, in the ‘80s and ‘90s. Expensive programmes which caused losses of several hundreds of millions of dollars for Hydro-Quebec and which gave rise to the Doyon board of inquiry.

Then, from 2000, came the invitation to tender for 36 lots of public land, so controversial and such a source of conflict that it finally had to be abandoned. It is in the wake of these events that the Adopt a River campaign was launched and, subsequently, the Rivers Foundation created.

The stance taken by the Rivers Foundation in favour of the ownership and public development of energy resources is not, for all that, a blank cheque for Hydro-Quebec. Because pursuing the development of hydroelectricity raises questions which cannot be circumvented in this the beginning of the 21st century.

How many virgin rivers of the size of the Rupert (560 km) will remain in the world in 10 years time? What is the worth, in 2006, of conserving the integrity of such a river?

Why does it have to be diverted to produce energy?  Is this the best option available to reach that objective, the most cost effective and the least damaging?

And if this energy is developed only for export, a drop of water in the ocean of American power consumption, shouldn’t we have all our rivers developed, no matter which and by whom?

Neglected options

The Rivers Foundation asserts that Hydro-Quebec has many options for energy development that have a clearly lesser environmental impact than the diversion of an entire drainage basin, and which offer equal or greater economic and social benefits. However, Hydro-Quebec refuses to consider these options. How do you explain in particular that the state is not itself developing Quebec’s immense potential for wind power, when it has the ideal conditions for optimising balancing and storage? How many hundreds of millions of dollars profit, supported by our tariffs, will go to the private sector instead of to the Treasury, if the first 3000 MW of wind development all go to the private sector?

Why is Quebec so slow in fully exploiting its potential for energy saving? It is the most lucrative of its reserves, creating up to 12,000 jobs per billion dollars invested as opposed to around 9,000 for big hydroelectric projects. Are we waiting to launch a massive national programme of building restoration in order to extract thousands of Québécois households from their spiral of poverty caused by exorbitant bills for energy that is escaping out their windows? Are we waiting for the systematic promotion of programmes of financial support, optimal use of geothermal and solar power to reduce the consumption of energy associated with heating buildings?

Each TWh of consumption which could be avoided in Quebec (we consumed 170 TWh in 2005) is a saving of 88 million dollars for consumers. Furthermore, this same TWh saved can be resold to outside markets by Hydro-Quebec at a price which is already between 85 and 100 million dollars in 2006-2007. In short, the electricity which Quebec could resell at a greater profit is that which we are currently producing, which we are currently consuming, but which we could avoid consuming.

The economic model to which Alain Dubuc refers is founded on the assumption that continuous growth in demand itself justifies an increase in supply. Creating an ever increasing pressure on the exploitation of resources, this model turns out to be unable to integrate the principle of caution and the demands of the 21st century. The Rivers Foundation prefers to put forward a collection of options that address current requirements from the point of view of first controlling the demand and also diversifying the supply.

Let us finally recall certain questions related to the Eastmain-1-A/diversion of the Rupert project, whose public hearings are ongoing:

- why is this process of evaluation characterised by impossible deadlines and ridiculous financial resources, depriving the population of any real possibility of examination?
- why is the examination of alternative solutions to the diversion summarised in four pages out of 6,000, including a ridiculous line and a half on the advantages of the wind alternative?
- why it is impossible to obtain the breakdown of the costs and the analysis of projected incomes on this four billion dollar project, whose costs are met by the people of Quebec?
- why it is impossible to obtain data on the immense mercury contamination created by the project?

Far from assembling the conditions for a substantial energy plan and an appropriate public framework, the Liberal government dithers for almost a year and a half and postpones the publication of its energy policy. As for individual  cases, it allows, for example, a private power station to operate at the foot of a barrage which is owned and run by Hydro-Quebec (the Matawin River). It postpones the aquatic reserve project on the river Ashuapmushuan which was to be the first in Quebec, and puts it in danger... It promotes an anarchistic proliferation of small private projects, both hydroelectric and wind, all over Quebec.

However, with its great hydroelectric complex and its huge wind reserves, its unexploited energy saving potential in geothermal and solar power and its capacity for technological innovation, Quebec has all the assets to become an international model as regards energy. And, furthermore, it could do all that at a profit to the community, while still preserving some of the last great virgin rivers of the planet which, in a few years time, will be the envy of the whole world.

The questions which we put are perfectly relevant and they concern directly the interests of the whole of Quebec. We will thus continue to pose them, despite all attempts at gagging.


An example of the type of editorial comment that Roy objects to:
Alain Dubuc, La Presse Wednesday 28 September 2005 (translated)
"The other threat comes from inside, and it's the movement to protect our rivers, in which our artists cheerfully participate, led by Roy Dupuis who is sincere but confused, and above all completely intoxicated by the magical thought that wind power could be an energy solution for Quebec rather than a supplementary resource. It's insane were this paradise of hydroelectricity to give way to a form of energy that's more expensive, less reliable and based on foreign technology.  No-one would think of replacing maple trees with growing sugar cane under glass."