The environment left unspoken

With only two of five parties having presented election proposals on the environment, several questions arise about the place this sector will hold after October 5.

The Parti Québécois and Québec solidaire have both tabled a full environmental plan, separate from their election platform. This practice, uncommon in previous campaigns, carries the risk of treating the environment in a silo and limiting its interactions with other areas of policy. Both parties nonetheless seem to rise to the challenge by proposing measures that position the environment as a lever for Quebec’s economic and social development, even if their prioritization of sub-issues and their level of ambition differ.

Radio silence

The silence of the other parties on the environment, for its part, leaves a void. The point is not only to take a position, but above all to understand the place this sector will hold in the next government. The question is far broader than cutting GHG emissions. It includes many environmental businesses, a number of regulations affecting them and energy management. These are all major areas of state jurisdiction, which shape the core mission of a department with considerable powers, a leading player in land management that should be hard to ignore.

The absence of the environment as a theme in its own right in the leaders’ messaging may seem consistent in a global political ecosystem that is losing interest in it, but it remains surprising in the Canadian context, where Quebec and Canada are rarely in step on the subject. A federal government that commits to major rollbacks, as is currently the case, usually prompts a renewed environmental commitment from the Quebec government. Because of the rivalry between the two levels of government in this area of shared jurisdiction, and the importance Quebec places on keeping control over the environment, it tends to multiply initiatives and position itself as a bulwark for environmental protection and the priorities of its territory. One example is the greenhouse gas cap-and-trade system, a Quebec flagship, compared with the abolished Canadian carbon tax.

We are witnessing a first: no reaction from the parties to Prime Minister Carney’s fossil fuel commitments, an indifference in a field where Quebec does not usually hesitate to take a divisive stance with its Canadian counterparts.

This lack of initiative also shows in what candidates say when asked about specific issues. They can be heard calling, over and over, for generic BAPE reviews, whether on water management or wind turbines. This is also part of a trend to delegate to public bodies and Crown corporations the job of giving opinions, proposing directions and orchestrating major projects. Yet it is up to the government and its departments to arbitrate, set direction and prioritize the measures to adopt in societal transformations as crucial as the energy transition.

Social acceptability does not mean an absence of discussion

Not talking about the environment, avoiding commitment by deferring to non-ministerial bodies, amounts to refusing to govern in a field that is fundamental to the territory. A premier cannot opt out of a field because the questions are complex; the office demands showing up in every area of the state, whatever they may be.

Social acceptability cannot serve as a reason to avoid making decisions or taking a position. Building social dialogue requires daring to be at the heart of the issues that divide.

Even as the media point out this situation, we are seeing debates where they ask virtually no questions on the subject, where the proposals of the two parties with a separate platform get barely any coverage and where few candidates are invited to comment on environmental issues. In these circumstances, who is to blame: the parties that avoid talking about it, or the media that do not force them to address these thorny questions?