Report - Agence canadienne d'évaluation environnementale

Social acceptance of the project
services and infrastructures, as well as the development of knowledge with possible
creation of a natural gas research chair. At the same time as there are these
beneficial economic spin-offs for the whole community, negative social repercussions
will affect the population near the proposed facilities. According to participants in the
hearings, and health professionals and public health representatives from la
Chaudière-Appalaches and la Capitale-Nationale, the project would have some social
impacts on the population living nearby. The proponent, however, is of the view that
as the project becomes more familiar and its advantages more concrete, the tensions
surrounding it would be mitigated.
MDDEP ministerial guidelines issued for the impact statement suggested evaluating
“the social impacts of the project as a whole, i.e. its effects on the population itself and
its composition, quality of life, and community relations such as lifestyle changes or
relocation of individuals and activities etc.” This would determine appropriate
measures to mitigate the impacts. The federal guidelines from the CEAA relate to
those from the MDDEP without adding any details on social impacts, with the
exception of instructions in case of possible expropriation. The guidelines suggest that
“the proponents shall explain how (criteria, parameters used) financial compensation
will be negotiated and who will be responsible for this process. They shall also
describe the recourse available to owners in case of a disagreement 1 .”
According to the proponent, members of the public raised the project-related social
impacts during the information and consultation meetings that the proponent held
between 2004 and 2005. The proponent also explained that “as the project evolved,
Rabaska developed a position that took the form of formal commitments in regard to
the project’s social impacts.” According to the impact assessment, financial
compensation for residents within a radius of 1.5 km is the main mitigation measure
proposed by the proponent. To this end, the proponent made the following
commitments to citizens living within a 1.5- km radius of the facilities (PR3.2, p. 5.12,
5.23 and 5.24):
– To financially compensate any property owner for whom the resale value of his
property could diminish because of the project on the basis of fair market value.
– To compensate any property owner who does not want to stay near the facilities
by reimbursing all costs related to the sale of his or her present property, the cost
of buying a new property and moving costs.
1. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Guidelines for the Preparation of the Environmental Impact
Statement of the Rabaska Project, p. 11 [On-line, May 7, 2007):
www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/DocHTMLContainer_e.cfm?DocumentID=6854&SrchPg=2].
176 Rabaska Project – Implementation of an LNG Terminal and Related Infrastructure