Report - Agence canadienne d'évaluation environnementale

Opinions of participants
Moreover, certain area residents said that they had verified the area’s designation
with municipal officials before moving there and that it didn’t have any industrialportuary
designation. To this effect, a resident stated “I never would have moved to
this area if the city had clearly specified that it wanted to change the area’s
designation to heavy industry and if public servants would have informed me of this
before I purchased my land when I verified its zoning status” (Mr. Christian Ruel,
DM194, p. 4). The École Sainte-Famille, located at approximately one kilometre of the
planned site, stated:
In 1990, the founders of the Holy Family School insisted on building the school in
a semi-rural environment. They would never have bought a building located in an
industrial-portuary area. Our current environment corresponds to the educational
profile of our school, thanks to a setting that is quiet, customized and in touch with
nature. We feel as if Rabaska is “stealing” our school environment by “perverting”
the zoning spirit of Lévis-east and Beaumont.
(DM146, p. 5)
For its part, the Association pour la protection de l’environnement de Lévis (APPEL)
stated that “during all the years when municipal elected officials modified, did not modify
or remodified the development plan of their area, residents both new and old were
never informed of the consequences that these modifications could have on their living
environment” (DM459, p. 28). In the same vein, GIRAM representatives thought that the
City of Lévis “had been inconsequent when granting residential building permits in the
area that it now considers as industrial-portuary” (DM461, p. 94).
Furthermore, during the public audience, several participants were unhappy with the
way the City of Lévis acted as per the Rabaska matter. One participant stated:
“regarding the City of Lévis, we are talking about a development plan that dates back
to 1987; in my opinion, not reviewing a city’s development plan over a twenty-year
period is totally unacceptable” (Mr. Érick Lambert, DT19, p. 3). Others 1 were of the
opinion that municipal officials failed in their role as citizen representatives regarding
potential benefits agreed to by the proponent. For one participant, “the city’s attitude in
this matter gives rise to a feeling of abandonment, and for some, betrayal or
exasperation” (Mr. Jacques Levasseur, DM460, p. 5). Some also denounced the lack
of consultation of Ville-Guay area citizens, who are directly affected by this project,
from Lévis elected officials (Ms. Fabienne Gagné, DT21, p. 5; Mr. Michel Arsenault,
DM604, p. 2).
1. Mr. Jean-Claude Gosselin, DM63, p. 2; GIRAM, DM461, p. 83; Ms. Gabrielle Larose, DM26, p. 1 and 2;
Ms. Fabienne Gagné, DM376, p. 2; Ms. Line Caron, DM605, p. 4; Mr. Christian Ruel, DM194, p. 4.
30 Rabaska Project – Implementation of an LNG Terminal and Related Infrastructure