From t.holzinger@netaxis.qc.ca Thu Jul 10 10:58:20 1997 Received: from mail.netaxis.ca (root@trifid-gate.netaxis.ca [207.96.187.114]) by lox.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA12318 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 1997 10:57:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from yul22.netaxis.ca (yul22.netaxis.ca [207.253.49.122]) by mail.netaxis.ca (8.8.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA17497 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 1997 11:06:16 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 11:06:16 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19970710110811.1aff95c8@mailhost.netaxis.qc.ca> X-Sender: t.holzinger@mailhost.netaxis.qc.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: Dianne Murray From: Tom Holzinger Subject: update version (38 K) Status: OR Dianne, If you do another re-mailing of our long document, please use this version. It has the Innu fax and e-mail numbers, and also Guy Chevrette's coordinates. Thanks. Tom * * * * * LETTER FROM QUÉBEC Montréal, 10 July 97 Dear Fellow Environmentalists, As you know, here in Québec we have recently entered a period of crisis with Hydro-Québec and Québec's Ministry of Natural Resources. These agencies wish to leap headlong into the newly deregulated American market for electricity, including greatly expanding electricity production for export. This expansion is almost entirely predicated on damming and diverting more rivers, here in Québec and in Labrador. This letter describes the most urgent threat, that of additional near-term diversions into existing hydroelectric facilities. For those of you in the rest of Canada and the United States, it is suggested that you act immediately in solidarity by faxing to our Environment Minister opposing the diversions of the Carheil and Aux Pékans rivers, as he is under pressure to recommend an immediate authorization (first half of July). * * * * * BACKGROUND TO OUR URGENT SITUATION IN QUÉBEC This year has seen Hydro-Québec mount a full-scale offensive for more hydro generation. Under the leadership of André Caillé, appointed nine months ago, the state-owned utility company has made a 180-degree turn towards the American export market and has revived many of the hydro projects that had been put on ice with the emergence of regional electricity surpluses in the early 90s. In 1997 alone there have been the following developments: HQ and the Québec Government have cooperated on a new law (Bill 50) and new regulations under the Hydro-Québec Act that mirror the provisions of FERC's Order 888, thus allowing third-party access to HQ's transmission lines, and permitting a very limited degree of wholesale competition in Québec. (Since HQ controls virtually all retail distribution of electricity in Québec, only 3% of Québec's market was in fact opened to competition.) The explicit purpose of these regulations was to gain FERC approval for HQ's unregulated exports to the U.S.; in fact, they were adopted in total secrecy, without even the standard 60-day comment period before regulations take effect. Hydro-Québec's FERC application via its subsidiary H.Q. Energy Services (U.S.) Inc. has been partially approved; it is presently under scrutiny to see if it meets FERC's "market power" test of not being too dominating a player. In the meantime HQ not only continues to sell a high volume of contract and spot electricity under its old arrangements but also has signed five new contracts whose terms remain secret, i.e. it is not known when deliveries are to begin, for how long, for what amounts, at what price. The purchasers are Long Island Lighting Company, Montaup Electric Company, Boston Edison Company, United Illuminating Company, and Central Maine Power Company; the government decrees ratifying these contracts were all issued between December 1996 and April 1997. In addition, HQ has also acquired a controlling interest in a natural gas holding company, Noverco, that owns the principal natural gas suppliers and retailers in Québec and parts of New England. Mr. Caillé rose to prominence as the CEO of Gaz Métropolitain, the largest Noverco operating subsidiary, before being appointed to HQ. He has justified this purchase by invoking the trend toward "convergence" of electricity and gas; the anticompetitive aspects of the acquisition in Québec have been largely ignored. The Québec government has set up a new Régie de l'énergie (Energy Board) to oversee all future public and private activities in the production, transmission, distribution, and marketing of electricity and natural gas. This board of seven appointed members was named at the beginning of June and will begin its public work in September. The only commissioner expected to promote environmental protection is François Tanguay, the ex-director of Greenpeace Québec, whereas most the others are expected to take a dollars-and-cents view. The chairman is reportedly a close personal friend of André Caillé, and served on the Board of Gaz Métropolitain when Mr. Caillé was CEO. One board member was previously employed by Hydro-Québec; another was for many years in charge of electricity rates at the Ministry of Natural Resources and more recently worked in the office of Premier Lucien Bouchard. The Régie has wide-ranging powers to regulate retail prices, exports, investments, and investment priorities, and it is also mandated to advise the government on the further deregulation and restructuring of Hydro-Québec. Its decisions are final and are not subject to judicial review. HQ has announced a commercial orientation, including a renewed emphasis on both sales and profitability. Mr. Caillé has detailed a goal of earning a yield on investment of 11% and has promised to provide the government with a dividend of some $400 million in 1997. He has not asked for new rate hikes, but he continues to cut costs and to look for new sources of revenue. He has revised the mandate of HQ from being the secure fountainhead of Québec electricity to being a wide-ranging commercial (and risk-taking) enterprise on the large North American playing field. He has announced the goal of making HQ one of the five major energy companies in North America, on the scale of Enron and Duke/PanEnergy. Within the past few days he has announced production and marketing partnerships with Enron, so that hydroelectricity and natural gas may "converge". He has spoken of export revenues in the billions of dollars and of overcoming transmission constraints by purchasing equity interests in U.S. transmission-owning companies, in order to facilitate the building of new lines. To feed these new exports, he has spoken of massive new hydro construction in Québec and rumours abound of another Churchill Falls complex in Labrador/Newfoundland, though specific plans (apart from the river diversions discussed below) will not be known until September. He has also mentioned the desirability of constructing gas generation in the USA, with HQ's new partner Enron supplying part of the fuel. Finally, HQ is part of a consortium fighting for the rights to pipe Sable Island gas (Nova Scotia) through Québec to New England. It is not all expansionist news. HQ does take one specific risk in its daily operations that startles all observers: it "turbines" more water during the course of the year than flows into its reservoirs, thus steadily drawing down its reserves. Because of four consecutive years of below-average rainfall and snowfall, its current electricity exports are in effect being borrowed against uncertain future inflows. Québec may well live to regret this gamble. The pattern of risk-bearing exports began in January 1994 and has continued until recently with minimal publiccomment. Le Devoir, an influential newspaper, recently published figures indicating that current reserves are well below the danger level. Last week another paper reported that the Manic-5 generating station is now largely idle because of a lack of water. In public, Hydro-Québec has recently begun to refuse to give out information concerning its water reserves, on the grounds that this is "commercial information" that might be useful to its competitors. It is known, however, that in the first three months of 1997 it exported more than 3.25 TWh and did not seriously cut back sales until April of this year. It is not known whether HQ has informed either its export customers or its investment bankers of its current situation. (Under a strict interpretation of NAFTA rules, if HQ were to curtail supplies due to drought, it would probably be obliged to cut both its Québec and American deliveries by the same proportion, a NAFTA provision which has never been tested and a potential outcome of which most Québecers are quite unaware.) HQ has become very aggressive about acquiring additional water for its existing reservoirs and for the Sainte-Marguerite-3 dam now under construction. Since the beginning of the year it has announced plans to divert no fewer than eight rivers into four separate reservoirs. THE BERSIMIS REGION The first proposals are for diversions of the Portneuf, Manouane, Sault-aux-Cochons, and Boucher rivers into existing dams of the Bersimis and Aux Outardes complexes, all in the same region north of Lac St-Jean. Hydro-Québec submitted detailed plans to the government early in the year without making them public, and neither HQ's CEO Caillé nor the Minister of Natural Resources Guy Chevrette acknowledged them to the parliamentary oversight committee that met in April. At that time these officials mentioned only the "optimization" of an existing project. It has since emerged (via Québec's Freedom of Information Act) that all four proposals state explicitly that the additional energy is "to take advantage of the growing opportunities of the American export market". This marks the first time that HQ has justified environmental impacts for the sole purpose of exports. Furthermore, HQ wants to dispense with environmental hearings. (A river diversion, though not as irreversible as a dam, is more devastating to the downstream region, since the riverbed below a diversion may be virtually dry.) Instead, it has proposed to overcome local opposition by offering a 2% annual revenue share to the affected county council. (Note below that revenue sharing instead of one-time compensation will probably be offered to the James Bay Cree as well, for the proposed further environmental damage to their territory.) There are also Innu communities in the Bersimis/Outardes region, and HQ is undertaking negotiations with them, in the hope of circumventing public hearings. Under the law, avoiding hearings should not be possible, since Québec's Environmental Quality Act gives any citizen the right to request them, but the Environment Ministry has made it a practice to dismiss as "frivolous" any request coming from individuals who do not live in the region directly affected by the project. (This practice was denounced by the Doyon Commission of inquiry, whose report in 1996 was a major indictment of the government and HQ of complicity with private promoters). The diversions would deal a direct blow to a number of downstream commercial interests, among them several independent power producers. The owners of private dams on two of these four rivers include Alcan, the major aluminum corporation.Hydro-Québec would compensate these owners for their lost electricity generation. Although HQ would gain no capacity (its peak power would remain unchanged), it might gain as much as 1.2 terawatt-hours annually in total energy. As the capital cost of the diversions is estimated at $100 million, amortized over 20 years, the immediate dollar cost of this additional energy is seemingly very low, low enough to reward HQ for overcoming the environmental and political obstacles described above. Because the timetable submitted to the government includes no months allocated to public review, HQ hopes to complete the Portneuf and Sault-aux-Cochons diversions by November next year (!), with Boucher following in 2001 and Manouane in 2002. If any of these diversions were to be carried out without a public review, it should become a cause celebré throughout North America. Although the authorization process for these diversions has not been announced, there has already been public bickering between the Minister of Natural Resources Guy Chevrette and the Minister of the Environment David Cliche. As far as possible, Mr. Chevrette and HQ want these and similar hydro projects to be examined only by the new Régie de l'énergie (Energy Board) and not by the B.A.P.E. (Québec's environmental review office). Mr. Cliche recently tried to quash a private sector proposal to harness a well-known waterfalls on the Chaudière River but was beaten in Cabinet by Mr. Chevrette and a group of very determined business interests. Mr. Cliche has also supported the Heritage Rivers project to identify and classify those rivers to be saved from commercial development. While he may be a tactical ally, his instincts are political, and the experience of the environmental movement is that he cannot be relied upon to mount a principled defence of Québec's wild places. THE MOISIE RIVER TRIBUTARIES Within days of the Bersimis revelations, Hydro-Québec was back in the news when it approached the Uashat/Mani-Utenam Band Council (Innu) about diverting two of the headwaters of the famed Moisie River, the Carheil and Aux Pékans rivers, into the neighbouring Ste-Marguerite river basin. This latter river, much larger than the others, has several existing dams and a third under construction, SM-3, which would receive the proposed diversions. The additional water would add an estimated 1.2 TWh/year to HQ's energy supplies, i.e. the same amount as the four Bersimis diversions. In the case of SM-3, however, the generating plant has been designed so that an additional bank of turbines can easily be added. If HQ goes ahead with more turbines, it would gain an extra 440 MW of peak power for only a moderately increased investment. The low unit cost of the additional energy and power would bring the overall cost of SM-3 down to a potentially profitable level; without the diversions SM-3 electricity would cost 3.5¢/kWh, more than the current (and anticipated) export price. All of these works and proposed works have been the subject of intense and prolonged debate. In the late 80s, when HQ first drew up its plans for the upper Ste-Marguerite, it hoped to divert in part the Moisie River, a critical spawning area for Atlantic salmon. Public opinion and international opinion forced HQ to resubmit its project, this time asking to divert the two tributaries but leaving the Moisie free-flowing albeit much reduced. In 1993 a B.A.P.E. commission rejected this plan and expressed serious reservations about the justification for the Ste-Marguerite dam itself. In one of its final pre-election acts, the soon-to-be-defeated Liberalgovernment went ahead and authorized the building of the dam without the diversions. The same day HQ announced drastically reduced load forecasts and cutbacks to its plans for future projects. While the authorization excluded the diversions "for now", it allowed for them to be authorized at a later date. Meanwhile, a joint federal-provincial committee was formed to examine scientifically the diversions' impacts on the Moisie's salmon. (Other impacts on the river system were ignored.) A three-man committee commissioned an expert report, which through complex modelling based in part on the doubtful experience of the Snake River in the USA, determined that the risk was minimal. This model was severely criticized by biologists from the Atlantic Salmon Federation, who argued that the conclusions depended on unjustified assumptions and that there were insufficient data and thus an unacceptable level of risk. On April 14 of this year, the committee dismissed that opinion and advised the government that there was no evident risk. The MEF (Environment Ministry) received their report and initiated the standard 60-day waiting period during which comments were to be made by interested parties, but the interested parties were not informed, leading to suspicions that the government wanted to slip this project past its critics. This suspicion has been further fueled by recent changes in HQ's and the government's timetables. At the beginning of the year they reassured critics that any construction would be years away and that there would be fresh environmental hearings before diversions were authorized. Last week HQ announced that it was speeding up construction of the SM-3 dam and power plant so that it could impound water and come on line in May 2001 instead of November 2001. On June 20 a spokesman told Le Devoir that HQ wanted the government to authorize the Carheil/Pékans diversions two weeks after the 60-day comment period, i.e. at any time after June 29. In response to a Freedom of Information request, Hydro-Québec confirmed on June 26 that it has written to both governments that it is "not necessary to ask for 'approval' of the diversions of the Carheil and Aux Pékans rivers, because the request for approval was already made in July 1991 as part of the whole project of hydroelectric development known as Sainte-Marguerite-3." The federal government of Canada must approve because it shares jurisdiction over fish; the National Energy Board of Canada must approve new production facilities designed to generate for export, but this examination is likely to be perfunctory if at all. Finally, with regard to compensation for the affected Native people, HQ has said that once the government gave its go-ahead, negotiations with the Mani-Utenam band council could be completed within 45 days. Thus all external indications are that HQ now considers the SM-3 project to include integrally the diversions of the Carheil and Aux Pékans rivers, and that the full project is on their fastest possible track. (Quite possibly driven by drought: a race for additional water reserves before a partial system shutdown). The construction of the SM-3 project -- including a dam wall and a generating plant that can handle the extra Moisie water -- is apparently proceeding well on their accelerated schedule. Therefore it is believed environment minister Cliche is under intense pressure to authorize the two diversions without having them be examined by his ministry for impacts or waiting for the new Régie to scrutinize their rationale under integrated resource planning. If HQ and the Québec government override due process on a renowned river like the Moisie and its tributaries, they may choose to try to do so on the four proposed Bersimis diversions as well. On Thursday July 3 there was a strong unsettling indication that the present government will try to give Hydro-Québec what it wants. After a fierce political battle both inside and outside its ranks, the cabinet approved the most scandalous dam project to date -- the damming and drying up of the above-mentioned Chaudière Falls just south of Québec City, a favourite tourist site. The private developer will bear no risk because it has a contract guaranteeing a high fixed price for 20 years; Hydro-Québec is obliged to purchase. The minister most opposed to the project, David Cliche of the MEF, was dragged along after marathon meetings of the inner cabinet. He would now appear to be the last line of administrative defence against the diversions of the Moisie tributaries, unless the federal government unexpectedly acknowledges its responsibilities. The most critical period for influencing environment minister David Cliche is probably now, the first weeks of July 1997. (See writing and faxing information below). He should be supported in his recent statements that all the proposed diversions should be publicly examined by his ministry's B.A.P.E. process. Messages can be worded so as to strengthen his resolve not to be pushed into overriding the principle of public review. They can also support the widely held view, and one which Mr. Cliche has publicly supported, that the Moisie and its watershed should be declared a Québec Heritage River and thus permanently protected from commercial development. THE GREAT WHALE AND RUPERT RIVERS Québecers woke up to a shocking headline on Saturday June 7: "Hydro Reviving Great Whale". Leaked by Cree leaders, the story revealed -- and was later confirmed by Hydro-Québec and Minister Chevrette's office -- that HQ wishes to divert the Great Whale River southwards and the Rupert River northwards so that both would flow into the La Grande River complex of dams and power stations which lies between them on the east side of James Bay. Under current treaty and law, jurisdiction over the affected land and water is shared between the Québec government, the Canadian government, and the James Bay Cree of Québec. A previous attempt by Hydro-Québec to dam the Great Whale foundered in December 1995 when solidarity with the Crees, strong domestic and international opposition, a cancelled New York export contract, and a projected high cost per kilowatt-hour caused the Parti Québécois government to put the project "on ice". Now, 18 months later with low water and only its export markets likely to grow, HQ is investing in additional kilowatt-hours of energy, not additional peak power capacity. River diversions, where they are possible, meet this goal at low dollar cost but at great environmental cost. First signs are that HQ will pursue this new production strategy tenaciously, including at James Bay. It has initiated talks with Cree leaders before going public with any detailed engineering or cost studies, and both Minister Chevrette and Premier Bouchard have become personally involved in these talks. One month ago Mr. Bouchard flew north to the Cree community of Waswanipi to meet with a group of Cree leaders, a significant gesture by the government. Furthermore, he apparently offered the broad outline of a revenue-sharing plan whereby Cree communities would receive a guaranteed share of proceeds (and control) from resource exploitation on their land, an improvement over the terms of the James Bay and Northern Québec Agreement in force now. Because of the possibility of such a revenue plan, the Cree may not be unanimous in immediately opposing the river diversions. Some Cree leaders have already predicted, however, that within a few months their resistance to hydro development will again be high, especially if their international solidarity movement springs back to life. (Note: at the same time the Cree may well accept forest and mineral exploitation together with a share in its revenues and control). "What are the next moves on Great Whale?" For Hydro-Québec they are to talk privately with the Cree, hoping to deflect their resistance and forestall any international outcry. For the government, to try to have the broad outline of a tentative agreement before the next elections and referendum, but only if no group is too aggrieved at the result. For the Cree, to negotiate in broad scope and at length while achieving consensus among themselves as to what they want: environmental integrity, resource control, self-government, revenue, or some combination of all of these. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVIST RESPONSE Paradoxically, it is only the environmental movement -- who have not been in any way consulted or informed -- who stand to gain from making hard-edged criticisms immediately. Québec's environmental groups have called for a suspension of the deregulation policy and of any planning for new hydroelectric works until the policy issues and their implications have been thoroughly aired. They have particularly attacked the Carheil and Aux Pékans diversions on procedural grounds (lack of adequate public review, leapfrogging over Régie jurisdiction, making meaningless a Heritage River status for the Moisie before it could even be considered) and on environmental grounds (huge unknown risk to unique salmon breeding grounds). Traditional Innu band members who dissent from their band council's cooperation with HQ, together with their supporters in Québec and the United States, have been vociferous in opposition to SM-3 and now to the diversions proposed to be incorporated. The Québec environmental movement is working in an economic context of high unemployment and a political context of cultural nationalism. It argues that it is crazy for Québec to destroy its free-flowing rivers to generate cheap electricity for non-Québecers, that the monetary investment should instead be made in energy efficiency and wind farms. Fortunately the Québec movement is gaining allies. The Parti Québécois government is alienating its own grassroots through numerous clumsy belt-tightening and budget-cutting policies, and some of these are perceived as betraying Québec's national interest. The swing in energy policy is already seen as such by a number of consumer, union, and professional groups, and they have joined environmentalists in making public denunciations. Several weeks ago over 30 of these groups unveiled a "Coalition contre la dénationalisation de l'électricité" which intends to wage a strong campaign at both the popular and political levels until the worst features of the new policy have been reversed. Given the present dynamic of Québec society, it may achieve much of what it wants after a new government is sworn in, perhaps in early 1999. In the meantime it must obstruct and delay any proposals for fast-track river diversions. The American environmental movement can help in the medium term by working to block all electricity imports from Hydro-Québec until a decisive political victory has been won in Québec, i.e. one in which it is declared that to additional wild river will ever be dammed or diverted. Until that time it should be evident that these imports are tainted. There is nothing "clean" or "renewable" or "sustainable" about Hydro-Québec's current policy of expansion. Each increased level of imports is directly paid for, in a clear one-to-one correspondence, by another North American watershed lost to wildlife and recreation. In the very short term -- the summer of 1997 -- both the Québec and American movements can apply the pressure of media coverage and a whirlwind fax and phone campaign to insist that the government of Québec not authorize the diversion of the Carheil and Aux Pékans rivers. * * * * * Letters and faxes should be sent to: M. le ministre David Cliche Ministère de l'environnement et de la faune difice Marie Guyart, 30e étage É675 boulevard René Lévesque Est Québec, Québec Canada G1R 5V7 fax : 418-643-4143 tél : 418-643-8259 e-mail : david.cliche@mef.gouv.qc.ca ___________________________________________ M. le premier ministre Lucien Bouchard l'Office du premier ministre Gouvernement du Québec difice J, 3e étage É885 Grande Allée Québec, Québec Canada G1A 1A2 fax : 418-643-3924 tél : 418-643-5321 ___________________________________________ M. le ministre Guy Chevrette Ministre des ressources naturelles Ministre des affaires Autochtones 5700, 4e avenue Ouest, bureau A308 Québec, Québec Canada G1H 6R1 fax : 418-643-4318 tél : 418-643-7295 e-mail: guy.chevrette@mrn.gouv.qc.ca ___________________________________________ Please send copies of your faxes and e-mails to the Coalition: Coalition contre la dénationalisation P.O. Box 1000, Station M Montréal, Québec Canada H1V 3R2 fax : 514-254-5873 tél : 514-252-3016 e-mail : energie@netaxis.qc.ca __________________________________________ If you are specifically supporting the Innu people, they ask that you copy your e-mails to innuqc@quebectel.com and copy your faxes to 418-646-4918. MODEL LETTER IN FRENCH Montréal, le 27 juin 1997 M. le ministre David Cliche Ministère de l'environnement et de la faune difice Marie-Guyart, 30e étage É675, boul. René-Lévesque Est Québec, Québec G1R 5V7 télécopieur : 418-643-4143 tél : 418-643-8259 courrier électronique : david.cliche@mef.gouv.qc.ca Cher M. le ministre, Nous avons récemment appris par les médias qu'Hydro-Québec envisage de nouveau le détournement des rivières Carheil et Aux Pékans vers la centrale Sainte-Marguerite-3. Nous nous opposons à un tel détournement. Dans son communiqué du 5 juin 1997, Hydro-Québec à indiqué qu'elle entend soumettre pour évaluation environnementale le détournement des quatre rivières suivants : Portneuf, Sault-aux-Cochons, Manouane et Boucher. L'absence de mention de ces deux affluents de la Moisie dans le communiqué du 5 juin, ainsi que le fait qu'Hydro-Québec n'a pas soumis un avis de projet sur ces détournements, nous amènent à croire que la société d'État entend soumettre sa demande quant à ces deux rivières directement au Conseil des ministres, dans le cadre de l'autorisation du projet Sainte-Marguerite-3 (décret 298-94). Or, nous sommes de l'avis que le détournement proposé de la Carheil et la Pékans posent des questions extrèmement important, sur lesquelles le public aura un fort intérêt à se faire entendre. Ce questionnement touche les aspects environnementaux et également la justification du projet. Dans les deux cas, on ne peut pas prétendre que les audiences du BAPE en 1993 les ont reglé. Nous aimerions vous rappeler les conclusions du « Rapport d'enquête et d'audience publique » de juin 1993 concernant « l'Aménagement hydroélectrique Sainte-Marguerite-3 » qui recommandaient fortement que le projet SM-3 ne comprenne pas le détournement des tributaires de la rivière Moisie vers la rivière Ste-Marguerite. Dans son rapport, la Commission conclut, d'une part, que ce projet devrait être envisagé seulement si le besoin de l'énergie à produire était démontré par une évaluation indépendante. D'autre part, un aménagement hydroélectrique de la rivière Ste-Marguerite, sans le détournement des tributaires de la rivière Moisie, pourrait être acceptable socialement et s'avérerait à moindre risque environnemental. De plus, d'après ce rapport, le projet n'aurait été justifié que si les besoins énergétiques du Québec l'avaient exigé. Par conséquent, SM-3 n'aurait jamais dû être entrepris, car au moment de son autorisation, en pleine campaigne électorale, les prévisions de la demande future d'Hydro-Québec étaient en chute libre. Même aujourd'hui, il est loin d'évident que cette centrale est justifiée, et encore moins des nouveaux détournements. Selon le dernier document de planification d'Hydro-Québec, « Tant en énergie qu'en puissance, aucun nouveau moyen ne serait requis avant 2004-2005. » (L'équilibre énergétique : Rapport particulier au 31 décembre 1996, p. 25). Vous avez, dans le passé, indiqué votre engagement à ce que les questions entourant les développements hydroélectriques se fassent sans un contexte de transparence et de respect mutuel. Vous avez également indiqué votre ouverture à la possibilité que la Moisie soit reconnu comme rivière patrimoniale, dans le cadre d'un programme de classification de rivières, tel que prévu par le rapport du débat public de l'énergie et de la politique gouvernementale qui en découlait -- ce qui deviendrait impossible si le gouvernement autorisait ces détournements. Nous vous demandons donc de ne pas recommander au Conseil de ministres d'autoriser les détournements des rivières Carheil et Aux Pékans vers la rivière Ste-Marguerite, avant que des audiences publiques exhaustives aient eu lieu devant le B.A.P.E. pour examiner ses impacts environnementaux et sa justification énergétique. Veuillez agréer, monsieur le Ministre, l'expression de nos sentiments distingués. Tom Holzinger MODEL LETTER IN ENGLISH June 27, 1997 Minister David Cliche Ministry of the Environnement and Wildlife Marie-Guyart Building, 30th floor Québec, Québec Canada G1R 5V7 fax: 418-643-4143, tel: 418-643-8259 e-mail: david.cliche@mef.gouv.qc.ca Dear Minister Cliche, We are writing to express our alarm and indignation over Hydro-Québec's intentions to divert the Aux Pékans and Carheil rivers, tributaries of the world-famous Moisie River, into the Sainte-Marguerite-3 dam now under construction. A decision by the government of Québec to approve this diversion project would go against world opinion and would subvert the earlier environmental assessment process -- the first in HQ's history -- in which all sectors of the public condemned the proposal. In 1995 Hydro-Québec agreed to modify the SM-3 project in response to the public's opposition to the diversion scheme. At the time, the Québec government claimed that this modification alone would bring the SM-3 project into compliance with public opinion and particularly, with the conclusions of the environmental review board (BAPE). While the BAPE had recommended that the Aux Pékans and Carheil rivers not be diverted, HQ's compliance with this recommendation was the only concession to the Board's may criticisms of the SM-3 proposal. Other concerns, and they are by no means minor, have been ignored. First, the environmental review board had found in 1993 that HQ's energy demand forecasting was seriously flawed. HQ has always failed to prove that there is any need for another giant hydroelectricity facility. Furthermore, the Board concluded that HQ's Environmental Impact Statement was incomplete, and that before the project was authorized, HQ should conduct a number of additional studies. Among them: studies on the cumulative effects of all existing dam projects in the North Shore region as a whole; studies of the effects of transmission lines, and further studies on the impacts on the natural environment, on human health and on the social fabric. The review board also noted HQ's Moisie salmon studies were grossly inadequate and recommended that the Moisie diversions not be approved. Hydro-Québec subsequently submitted a two-year study of salmon impacts to a joint commission, which recently concluded that the impacts would be insignificant. However, numerous fishery experts disagree. First, how can changing the habitat that began with the last ice age not have significant impacts on creatures as sensitive to changes in their particular waterway as the majestic Atlantic salmon? HQ still has not conducted a proper study. The life cycle of the salmon is seven years, not two. Any study on the life cycle of the Moisie salmon short of a seven-year study is inadequate. Further, HQ used the Snake River in Idaho as a model for "regulated flow" management. But in fact the historic salmon runs on the Snake River are now a thing of the past. It is a model of failure, not success. The Snake River sockeye salmon has recently been declared an endangered species by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the primary cause is stated to be -- hydroelectric dams. Finally, the aboriginal Innu people, who have never ceded their land to any government, are intricately connected to the Moisie and its salmon. It is the Innu's "Great River". To risk the death of the salmon run on this river is to gamble away the survival of the Innu people and their age-old culture. The Ste-Marguerite-3 project was the first Hydro-Québec to go through public hearings. Now HQ has attempted to remove the debate from the public sphere and to confine it to a team of government-appointed "experts" working behind closed doors, and to secret negotiations with the Mani-Utenam/Uashat Band Council. The 352 BAPE report, in which the testimony of Innu, recreationists, biologists, environmentalists and other sectors of the public, as well as the government-appointed review panel, thoroughly critiqued HQ's claims that the Moisie salmon would remain undisturbed by the diversions, has apparently been tossed aside. Mr. Minister, we learn from Hydro-Québec's internal documents that it has now submitted its Moisie water diversion project directly to your ministry and/or the Cabinet for authorization, intending to preclude any further public comment or debate. Mr. Minister, the world's environmental community finds this to be unacceptable. We urge you to suspend construction of the whole Ste-Marguerite-3 project until all the studies specified by the environmental review board have been carried out and until the modified proposal has been subjected to a public review. We also urge you to deny, once and for all, authorization of any diversions of the Moisie or its tributaries, and to declare the Moisie River a world heritage site. To tamper with this great salmon river -- the jewel of Québec -- for a few megawatt-hours of electricity is worse than folly. Keep it wild. Let it be. I look forward to your early reply. Yours sincerely, John Clark Charlotte, Vermont U.S.A. * * * * * To obtain further information, please contact the person who has forwarded this bulletin to you, or contact me below. Thank you. Tom Holzinger tel: 514-271-0564, fax: 514-271-0564 5160 Jeanne-Mance e-mail: t.holzinger@netaxis.qc.ca Montréal, Québec coalition: energie@netaxis.qc.ca Canada H2V 4K1 http://www.unites.uqam.ca/cese/energie/index.htm