Bill 69, a “clear step backwards for Quebec society,” according to Hydro employees

Photo: Jacques Nadeau archives Le Devoir Over 27 pages, the Syndicat des spécialistes et professionnels d’Hydro-Québec, which represents some 5,000 employees of the state-owned company, sharply criticizes the bill “ensuring responsible governance of energy resources.”

Electricity sold off to foreign multinationals, excessive privatization of the energy sector: with its Bill 69, the Legault government is casting a dark cloud over Hydro-Québec that could mark “a clear step backwards for Quebec society,” according to workers at the state-owned company.

The brief from the Syndicat des spécialistes et professionnels d’Hydro-Québec (SSPHQ) is intended to be an electroshock for the Minister of Economy and Energy, Christine Fréchette. Over 27 pages, the organization, which represents some 5,000 employees of the Crown corporation—experts in procurement, forestry, finance and the environment, for example—sharply criticizes the bill “ensuring responsible governance of energy resources.”

“Many of the provisions of Bill 69 constitute a frontal attack on the public nature of our energy,” it states.

Bequeathed to Ms. Fréchette by the resigning Minister Pierre Fitzgibbon, the legislative text in question provides for a range of measures that will change the face of energy management in Quebec. Upon reading it, the SSPHQ noted a major bone of contention: the possibility for private electricity producers to distribute their energy surpluses.

Hydro-Québec, we all paid for it. What we are talking about here is a dispossession of our assets for the benefit of private entrepreneurs.

— Gilles Cazade

Included in the bill last spring, this provision would allow companies like TES Canada, which plans to build a “green” hydrogen production plant powered by its wind turbines near Shawinigan, to sell its own energy to a neighbour. It is up to the minister in office to approve or reject these projects.

“The bill gives the minister exceptional powers and facilitates the privatization of electricity production and distribution in Quebec in an unprecedented way,” the union argues in its brief.

200% Deposit Bonus up to €3,000 180% First Deposit Bonus up to $20,000

“The biggest danger is a liberalization of Quebec's energy system,” adds the union's president, Gilles Cazade, in an interview with Le Devoir. “Hydro-Québec, we all paid for it. What we're talking about here is a dispossession of our assets for the benefit of private entrepreneurs. »

« Net setback »

In its brief, the SSPHQ states that the “adoption of the bill in its current form would constitute a net setback for Quebec society” and “would betray the legacy of René Lévesque and Adélard Godbout.”

However, it is not too late to remove the provisions of the bill that open the door to the private sector, the document states, in which it is also recommended to “nationalize electricity production of all types” and to “entrust the management of the Integrated Energy Resources Management Plan [PGIRE] […] to Hydro-Québec.”

Provided for in the bill, the PGIRE would take the form of a roadmap towards the energy transition signed by the Minister of Energy every six years, with a horizon of 25 years. According to the SSPHQ, entrusting its management to the Crown corporation would prevent “our world-renowned renewable energy [from being sold] at low prices to large multinational companies.”

Read also

• Quebec called upon to abandon Fitzgibbon’s energy bill
• QS wants to broaden the debate on Bill 69
• What are the issues of Bill 69 on energy?

“In danger”

In an interview with Le Devoir, the secretary general of the SSPHQ, Sonia Moore, does not beat around the bush. By moving forward with the bill as it has been written, the Legault government would “definitively” put Hydro-Québec “in danger.”

The SSPHQ was not invited to testify before the parliamentary committee this week, at a time when Minister Fréchette is hearing from a host of groups as part of the special consultation phase. Several members of the union office showed up in parliament in the last few days to get their message across, but “the government is missing a real opportunity for consultation,” laments Gilles Cazade.

Once the special consultation phase is over, Minister Fréchette will have the opportunity to put her stamp on Bill 69 during the clause-by-clause study of the text. The timing of this crucial phase, where amendments can be made to the provisions signed by Fitzgibbon, has not been chosen.