Opinions of participants On another subject, some participants believed that the project, by its very industrial nature, will help diversify the regional economy (Chambre de commerce des entrepreneurs du Québec, DT16, p. 3; Ms. Nathalie Lafond, DM124; Mr. Mario Castonguay, DM237, p. 1; Mr. Pierre Fraser, DM285, p. 1; Mr. Richard Tremblay, DM387, p. 1; Mr. Lucien and Ms. Monique N. Dion, DM568, p. 1). In this respect, a participant mentioned: The city of Québec area has always been known as a “public servant area”, because governmental offices were concentrated there. The decentralization of these services has reduced the work potential for citizens. In the past few years, we have seen a change in the direction of development, which is now focussing more and more on industrializing the economy. The Rabaska project would breathe new life into the region, which is already ailing from the closing of the shipyard. (Ropaq Construction inc. DM95, p. 7) In the same way, the Société de développement économique de Lévis was of the opinion that the Rabaska project will help maintain the region’s development rhythm, which would compensate for a slowdown in some economic sectors (DM545, p. 10). However, some participants believed the city of Lévis to be in a prosperous phase, and that, consequently, the project isn’t essential for its growth (GIRAM, DM461, p. 86). Some participants deemed the project’s drawbacks for part of the population as outweighing its economic spinoffs. According to one of them, “the economic spinoffs are not really that great when considering what our society must give to the proponent, i.e. a complete section of an extraordinary landscape located on the riverbank, right in front of the île d’Orléans” (Mr. Christian Ruel, DM194, p. 5). Moreover, accepting the project was seen by some more as “a precedent which sends the message that at Lévis, in Québec, a proponent can show up anywhere with promises of economic spinoffs and jobs, regardless of the environment, regardless of the local population” (Ms. Isabelle Carrier, DM624, p. 13). 40 Rabaska Project – Implementation of an LNG Terminal and Related Infrastructure
Job creation Opinions of participants The Société de développement économique de Lévis, as well as many participants, underscored the importance of this project’s job creation component, specifically during the construction phase which would span more than three years 1 . Other participants evoked the diversity of jobs required to build an LNG terminal, which will include “not only construction workers, but also many technicians and engineers who will be assigned exclusively to work monitoring and quality control duties for the entire building duration” (Inspec-Sol, DM62, p. 2). Moreover, the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec was of the opinion that direct and indirect job creation related to the project could in some way diminish the impacts that affected some parts of the region’s social-economic community (Ms. Françoise Bertrand, DT15, p. 53). Several participants highlighted the fact 2 that quality jobs would be created and that the proponent would favour the hiring of local workers. For Développement PME Chaudière-Appalaches, “the arrival of a jobsite like Rabaska, with the proponent’s promise to favour local labour and companies, is therefore a breath of fresh air for our region’s contractors” (DM607, p. 3). Some participants were preoccupied, however, about where the required workers to build the LNG terminal will come from, and suspected that some specialized labour may be called in from outside the region (Ms. Louise Latulippe, DM196, p. 8). The Groupe Perspective, following the example of other social-economic stakeholders, demanded a firm commitment on the part of the proponent “in order to favour our great region’s youth, workers and companies, by assuming the responsibility for developing the region’s qualified labour” (DM519, p. 5). 1. Quebec Employers’ Council, DM535, p. 3; Cométal inc., DM201, p. 2; Alu-Rex inc., DM208, p. 1; Métallurgie Pelchat inc., DM227, p. 1; Lucien Fournier et fils, DM230, p. 1; Excavation B. Bilodeau, DM246, p. 1; Transport d’agrégats du Québec inc., DM289, p. 6; Mr. Philippe Martel, DM69, p. 3; Mr. Jasay Bernard, DM212, p. 2; Mr. Paul Ferron, DM482, p. 2; Mr. Guy Boissonneault, DM491, p. 1; Mr. Pierre Paré, DM83, p. 2; Mr. Michel Brochu, DM86, p. 1; Mr. Marc Duguay, DM90, p. 1; Mr. Guy Duguay, DM107; Ms. Ghislaine Mr. Durepos, DM122; Ms. Carole Goudreault, DM127; Mr. Jean-François Dion, DM130; Ms. Rachel Chabot-Moisan, DM171, p. 2; Ms. Anette Roy, DM176; Mr. Éric Simoneau, DM219, p. 4; Mr. Daniel Lachance, DM236; Ms. Maude Laflamme, DM248; Mr. Émile Laflamme, DM251; Mr. Robert Brisebois, DM254; Mr. Alain Roy, DM255, p. 2; Mr. Guy Lachance, DM258; Mr. Frédéric Lachance, DM260; Ms. Sonya Denis, DM261, p. 2; Mr. Martial Fortier, DM262; Mr. Jacques Legros, DM263; Mr. Pierre Breton, DM264; Ms. Andrée Caron, DM272; Mr. Robert Grandbois, DM330; Plomberie Y. Beaudoin (2002) inc., DM339, p. 3; Fins Gourmands, DM352; Mr. François Moulin, DM368, p. 2; Mr. Gaétan Cahier, DM415; Entreprises P. A. Goulet et fils inc., DM474; Mr. Jean-Paul Drouin, DM481; Mr. Réal Labrecque, DM516, p. 3; Mr. Jean-François Leclerc, DM528; Autobus Auger, DM532; Ms. Linda Poirier, DM642, p. 2; Ms. Martine Demers, DM643; Mr. Guildo Brisson, DM682; Mr. Gaétan Lapointe, DM683, p. 1. 2. Cogémat inc., DM2, p. 2; Maxi-Paysage inc., DM5, p. 2 and 3; Pierquip inc., DM178, p. 2; Mr. Luc Castonguay, DM245; Les membranes Naulin inc., DM453, p. 2; Construction Raoul Pelletier (1997) inc., DM469, p. 2; Mr. Joel Ouellet, DM541, p. 1. Rabaska Project – Implementation of an LNG Terminal and Related Infrastructure 41