Report - Agence canadienne d'évaluation environnementale

Opinions of participants
Countries with much less territorial area than Québec, and which are much more
densely populated (such as France, for example), find the way to place these
high-risk technological facilities far from populations and in maritime corridors that
are close to the sea, or outside high-maritime-traffic areas.
(DM461, p. 32)
In this respect, another participant added:
These facilities are not located close to populations without their consent. Why
should I be forced to leave in order to live in security, and especially to keep my
health and quality of life? The proponent should first and foremost choose a site
that is far away from the population.
(Ms. Micheline Gagné, DM287, p. 6)
On another subject, the importance given by the proponent to economic
considerations as criteria to choose this site was raised by some participants
(Ms. Danièle Desjardins, DM646, p. 1; Mr. Jean-Claude Bouchard, DM408, p. 9;
Ms. Pierrette Bélanger, DT24, p. 3; Ms. Francine Demers Boutin, DM117, p. 4). One
participant objected to this choice: “the proponent has obviously asked himself only
one question: which site closest to the current pipeline could be chosen to build the
project? The end result being to save more than one million dollars for every kilometre
it was possible not to build” (Mr. Christian Ruel, DM194, p. 5).
Some participants raised the absence of alternatives regarding impact study site
choices. Aside from alternatives located nearby, i.e. within a 1-km radius, no other
option was analyzed by the proponent. To this end, a participant stated:
Searching for potential sites is the basis for the environmental assessment
process; it is also and especially a requirement that the proponent must meet to
justify his project’s site choice. However, the demonstration has not been made
that the Lévis site is appropriate to build an LNG terminal.
(Ms. Danièle Desjardins, DM646, p. 1)
Also, some participants, residing mainly in Beaumont, were deeply concerned that the
proponent had only moved his project to the other side of the limits of this municipality,
after the population refused to welcome the project (Mr. Sylvain Castonguay, DM578,
p. 4; Mr. Jean-Guy Allard, DM24, p. 1). Some considered such a gesture to be
unacceptable from a proponent who has asserted his intention to respect the will of the
population regarding the project. In this vein, a resident from Beaumont added:
In spite of the promise from Gaz Métro’s President to respect the population’s
decision, the proponent has taken every means possible to convince the
economic community of his project’s validity. After the Beaumont referendum, the
proponent undertook intensive lobbying activities.
(Ms. Louise Maranda, DM596, p. 6)
Rabaska Project – Implementation of an LNG Terminal and Related Infrastructure 27