Report - Agence canadienne d'évaluation environnementale

Opinions of participants
from perpetual constraints, which would prevent the enjoyment of the land taken by
the companies” (Ms. Kathleen Brochu, DM15, p. 2).
Some participants stated that should their residences be sold, replacing them with
another of a similar value and in a comparable location would be difficult in the current
real estate market:
In general, all of the people who live in our area own plots of land of 10,000,
20,000, 30,000 sq. ft. and more; many have views on the river and good
neighbours; it’s a tightly knit community; and now, they are being asked to go I
don’t know where, in a plot that measures 6,000 sq. ft.. Where are you going to
find that?
(Mr. Jean-Guy Allard, DT15, p. 38)
In addition, one participant evoked the impact that moving will have on his life plan:
“my retirement plan has come to an end, as I will be forced to take on another
mortgage. I know full well that I will never be able to purchase another home with the
equivalent land at the same price” (Mr. Jacques Côté, DT21, p. 73 and 74).
Area residents emphasized the value of the human capital they invested on their
homes and land (time, effort and energy) (Ms. Annie Marcoux and Mr. André Voros,
DM631, p. 8). In this respect, some expressed their total refusal to sell their
properties: “Mr. Kelly will never offer me enough money to obtain what I own right now
(Ms. Fabienne Gagné, DT21, p. 2). To this effect, the GIRAM was of the opinion that,
“for the proponent, everything is for sale. If you are stressed because you live next to
a terminal or if you fear that your quality of life will suffer, then you are offered a nice
plan to sell your home and move. Forget the fact that you have been living there for
many generations!” (Mr. Gaston Cadrin, DT16, p. 11).
Some participants disagreed with the financial compensation measures proposed by
the proponent with respect to the sale of their residences. Some wanted to obtain the
replacement value rather than the market value. Should the project get the green light,
one participant suggested that Rabaska purchase “the residences without delay and
pay a premium of at least 25 percent more than an assessment performed by an
independent appraiser” (Mr. Louis Guilmette, DM10, p. 12).
Impacts on the population and its environment
Many participants described the possible negative impacts from the project on the
local community’s living environment as follows: impacts on the population’s security;
on their quality of life and on human health; impacts through visual and sound
disturbances; psychosocial impacts; moving and being uprooted.
46 Rabaska Project – Implementation of an LNG Terminal and Related Infrastructure