by Dan Berman
March 1998
On January 25, 1998, during the severe ice storm that paralyzed much of
Québec, the Québec Cabinet decreed that Hydro-Québec's proposed Strategic
Plan 1998-2002 be approved, circumventing any public participation in the process.
Hydro-Québec submitted the strategic Plan in the autumn of 1997, which includes building
eight new diversion projects to augment the production of electricity of already existing
hydroelectric complexes located on traditional Cree and Innu territories. The large part of
this excess electricity is to be sold to utilities in the United States, following the opening
of the market under the deregulation of the industry.
This blatantly undemocratic move was condemned by many sectors within
Québec society, and opposition is growing to many of Hydro-Québec's proposed
projects. Mamit Innuat, representing four Innu Band Councils on the Lower North Shore region of
Québec, responded to the decree by stating they are contesting, with the possibility of
going to court, the proposed development projects in Labrador and la Romaine. Since then, it was
reported in the Québec City daily, Le Soleil, that Québec and Newfoundland
have reached an agreement for a massive new hydroelectric project on the Churchill River in
Newfoundland. At press time, this announcement had not been confirmed by either provincial
government.
The Coalition contre la dénationalisation de l'électricité denounced the
decree as scandalous political opportunism. According to Tom Holzinger of this
Québec-wide coalition, Hydro-Québec plans to increase the production of
electricity by 25% in the next decade. While the Strategic Plan does not name any specific
project, the Crown utility has applied for a total of eight diversion projects, new transmission
lines, and begun negotiations over the Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Project in Labrador. He
fears that HQ will now argue that because of the decree any of those individual projects is now
de facto approved by the government.
HQ in pursuit of partners
André Caillé, CEO of Hydro-Québec stated AWe will go in the regions and
discuss with potential partners how we are going to design and build projects. But again, his
actions in Abuilding partnerships questions this stated policy that suggests openness.
In January, Mr. Caillé stated that the proposed diversion of two tributaries of the
Moisie River into the SM-III hydroelectric complex was Aput on ice due to lack of consensus
for the project in the Sept-Isles region. The Innu of Mani-Utenam, and many
Québécois of the region concerned about tourism and salmon stocks, are opposed
to the proposed diversion.
In an interview published in Le Devoir on February 9, however, Mr. Caillé reveals
his true intentions. As Tom Holzinger points out, AHis delay is NOT based on any concern for the
environment or for legality or for democracy. It is simply a tactic to gain time so he can
purchase local support via Apartnerships, i.e. local para-public bodies owned by municipalities, county administrations, or
native band councils. These bodies would be able to borrow some money, co-invest with
Hydro-Québec in the diversion/destruction of their own local rivers, and then receive a
revenue share indefinitely.
Similarly, in the James Bay region, the Cree community of Whapmagoostui (Great Whale River)
voted overwhelmingly to oppose the diversion of the Great Whale River into existing reservoirs
of La Grande Complex on July 29, 1997. HQ, meanwhile, has been negotiating with the Grand
Council of the Cree for a revenue sharing deal to allow the project to proceed. Billy Diamond,
who signed the original James Bay Agreement, said ARevenue sharing would provide the communities
with self-sufficiency plus the revenues required for them to create the wealth that they need in
order to provide ... for the future for their young people.
According to Andy Mason of the James Bay network in New York State, the deregulation of the
utilities industry has made it more challenging for Cree supporters in the U.S. to block
Hydro-Québec contracts. ASales are more concealed, the source of electricity is no
longer public knowledge. He said that environmental groups in New York are promoting
legislation that will allow for the identification of the source of electrical power.
Once consumers know where the utilities buy there power, they can choose the company that does
not buy power from Hydro-Québec.
