Report - Agence canadienne d'évaluation environnementale

Opinions of participants
firmly opposed to the project. Conversely, a wide proportion of participants who live
further away from Lévis and its surrounding areas are of the view that the project
should be realized as quickly as possible. However, some participants who live
outside of the zone in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project site share the
concerns of those opposing the project (Ms. Denise Martel, DM205, p. 1; Les
associations NPD des régions de la Capitale-Nationale et de la Chaudière-
Appalaches, DM379, p. 3; Ms. Chantal Lacasse, DM163, p. 2).
Various factors contributed to the positions taken by citizens and groups in regard to
the project. One participant believed that “groups which are opposed to the Rabaska
project are defending their environment, their health and safety, while groups in
favour, mainly business people, are defending their financial interests” (Ms. Isabelle
Pouliot, DM380, p. 8). Another participant stated that the position of the project’s
opponents was motivated more by the defence of their own personal interests rather
than collective ones (Mr. Sylvain Marcoux, DM92, p. 2 and 3).
On the one hand, opponents evoked territorial considerations, as well as public safety
and environmental considerations in justification of their position. Many questioned the
project’s energy justification, or at the very least, believed that Quebec would need
only one LNG terminal. They believed that the project would contribute to higher
greenhouse gas emissions, which are responsible for climate change, and were
worried about the project’s environmental impacts. As such, they favoured renewable
energy sources and energy efficiency instead. They also believed that the chosen
project building site at Lévis is inappropriate. Factors cited in justification of this view
included the residential and agricultural character of the zone, as well as its
recreational usages, and the closeness of the site to inhabited areas, and the
landscape and heritage aspects of the zone. Some apprehended the negative impacts
that the project could have on the local economy, through decreased tourism appeal
and depreciation of adjacent property values. On the human level, participants feared
for their safety because of potential accident risks linked to various components of the
project. They were also worried by the harmful impacts it could have on their quality of
life and health, as well as on the natural environment.
On the other hand, participants cited the project’s energy purpose as well as its
importance to the local and regional economy as grounds for supporting it. They
believed that the project is justified to ensure Québec’s energy security and to
diversify available natural gas sources. According to them this diversification would
bring about a reduction in natural gas prices and improve the competitiveness of
businesses that use it. They also maintained that the expected economic benefits of
the project are both significant and much needed in the region; that the project’s
impacts on the human and natural environment would be limited and that proposed
12 Rabaska Project – Implementation of an LNG Terminal and Related Infrastructure