Are my questions disturbing?                                   

translation by Viv  
www.roydupuis-online.com

Roy Dupuis
Actor and co-president of the Rivers                                                                                 Foundation                                                              
Tuesday 25 April 2006

Since I started to ask questions about small hydroelectric power station
projects and, more recently, about 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 do not hesitate to quote 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 is it that I'm accused of? As an artist, for speaking out, for
not confining myself to my craft because of 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 in 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 to the public domain other
views on crucial social issues, these voices would be stifled in the din of
spokesmen hired by all sorts of developers.

The disturbing questions

What, then, are these issues I am raising, along with several other
speakers, 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) of between 15 and 20 TWh for export 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?

If it’s about diverting it 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 85 to 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 which address current requirements from the point of
view of first controlling the demand and also of 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 feeds one anarchistic proliferation with 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.