Six months later, the vast majority of questions raised by this megaproject remain unanswered, but we learn that the promoter continues to move forward at high speed on the ground by having contracts signed before the regulatory context has been able to be established.
For their part, Hydro-Québec and the CAQ government do not seem at all interested in listening to the population affected by the project.
In short, everything is happening as if the TES Canada project is a fait accompli even if no one has yet been able to define what social acceptability is, even though it is described as “essential to the project”.
To all requests for clarification, municipal councils, MRCs, the government and the developer respond sometimes with silence and sometimes with condescension. How can we in the same breath blame people who are not in favor of the project for being angry? Isn’t this condescension and contempt on the part of public and private authorities precisely a form of violence?
In reality, in the absence of a clear definition, we must conclude that this famous “social acceptability” is window dressing, that is to say a marketing gimmick. We can be convinced of this when we hear ridiculous arguments like those of Minister Fitzgibbon who recently spoke of a “magic project” in a public speech of shameful partiality.
However, this vast marketing enterprise must stop and we must really listen to the populations affected by the project instead of simply wanting to steamroll their concerns.
Instead of talking about social acceptability, we should instead talk about explicit and informed consent from the population. And unlike the nebulous social acceptability, the explicit and informed consent of the population is an easy concept to define and ultimately, to measure. But for this consent to be possible, we must first listen to the population and sincerely respond to their concerns. As with sexuality, consent is not simply the absence of a clear refusal. Consent is an ongoing process of enthusiastic and reaffirmed “yes” until doubt arises. This is what we should aim for if we wanted to make the TES Canada project a true flagship project.
At the moment, the CAQ government and TES Canada are in the position of the aggressor and the population of Mékinac and Des Chenaux, in that of the victim who is pushed around and whose voice is not heard.
Moreover, the only voices that have voiced a clear “yes” to the project in the ranks of the population all come from people wanting to sign a contract with TES Canada, that is to say, from people ready to ignore the possible disadvantages. for their neighbors and fellow citizens in exchange for money.
Thus, the CAQ and TES Canada will financially reward the 130 people ready to sacrifice their community for money for a project which is likely to negatively affect the quality of life of the 30,000 inhabitants of the MRC Mékinac and Channels. This is the “yes” that TES Canada and the CAQ have chosen to interpret as consent.
This project is being carried out like a real aggression.
And the irony is that in a cynical exercise of cognitive diversion (or gaslighting), the “opponents” of the project are described as bullies. Brushing aside the fact that asking questions does not necessarily mean fierce opposition, it is enough for a person self-declared as opposing the project to slip up for all the people who are not in favor of the project to be described as violent or violent. bullies. However, if a person in favor of the project knew of such a deviation, would we ask the promoter or the government to answer for it? We transform the victim into an aggressor. It’s the world upside down.
To be convinced of this, we must identify who has the power in this matter. However, this power is clearly and disproportionately in the hands of the government and in those of the wealthy developer. And in a situation where power is disproportionate, intimidation can only come from the side that has the power. Always.
We must put an end to this intimidation from the developer and the government and continue to ask for what the population has been demanding from the start, that is, a clear and honest discussion about the project. We must provide means for the population to give their consent. The government and the promoter must also favor this approach which would be the mark of a true democratic process.
Co-signatories: Dany JanvierAgainst the privatization of wind and sun in Mékinac Des Chenaux (RVEQ); Isabelle Clémentcouncilor Hérouxville; Yvan Bordeleaucouncilor Hérouxville; Chloé Germain-Thériencouncilor Saint-Stanislas; Roman Pokorskicouncilor Saint-Adelphe; Gaston RivardWind of democracy (RVEQ), Saint-Adelphe; Jean GuibertSaint-Maurice (RVEQ); René BeaudoinSainte-Geneviève-de-Batiscan; Denis ChampouxSaint-Adelphe; Claudette PichéSainte-Thècle; Nathalie LefebvreSaint-Adelphe; France LalibertéSainte-Thècle; Chantale DesaulniersSaint-Tite; Yves MaîtreSaint-Tite; Marie Dessuro, Sainte-Thècle; Louise DumasSainte-Thècle; Jean-Claude CyrSainte-Thècle; Dany BrouilletteSainte-Geneviève-de-Batiscan; Josée TremblayTrois-Rivières; Nancy GingrasSaint-Adelphe; Karine Brouillette, Saint-Prosper; Eric NoelSaint-Prosper; Yves MauriceSainte-Geneviève-de-Batiscan; Louise CôtéSainte-Geneviève-de-Batiscan; Gilles LalondeSainte-Thècle; Françoise DufresneSainte-Thècle; Richard LegaultSainte-Thècle; Jean HémondQuebec.
