Report - Agence canadienne d'évaluation environnementale

Opinions of participants
On this topic, the Chambres de commerce de Lévis et de Québec believed that “in
economic terms, we believe that there are great opportunities for the region, and they
may be gained at the price of some small inconveniences, but the quality of their
benefits can be far greater” (Mr. Christian Lévesque, DT15, p. 59). The Municipality of
Saint-Charles-de-Bellechasse used similar terms, by stating that the project “should
be approved, considering the fact that its advantages far outweigh its disadvantages”
(DM99, p. 4).
Defending the collective interest as a decisive factor of social acceptability was a view
which was supported by many participants in favour of the project. One participant
among many was of the opinion that, “in such a context, it appears […] that elected
officials […] from various levels of government have the duty and responsibility to
elucidate and defend this much-talked about collective interest” (Mr. Pierre Garant, DT19,
p. 32). Several participants believed that the project should go ahead, to the extent where
the need for the collective interest is established (Mr. Patrice Labrecque, DM214, p. 1;
Mr. Éric Dubé, DM170, p. 1; Ms. Dominique Hotte, DM71, p. 2). By the same token, one
participant was of the opinion that “this project is of public and collective interest. Even if
250 make enough noise for 2,000, the interests of Québec must have precedence over
this background noise” (Mr. Robert Gaboury, DM113, p. 1). Another participant
mentioned that the Rabaska project concerns an entire region and a province rather than
only a shoreline, and that the economic spinoffs justify the project’s approval (Mr. Éric
Dubé, DM170, p. 3).
From another point of view, some participants 1 defined the project’s social acceptability
by mainly considering the interests of those living nearby, who would have to cope with
the project’s disadvantages directly. As such, Démocratie Lévis asked of the Panel:
[...] that the citizens who are the most directly affected by various disruptions
linked to security, degradation of the immediate environment and quality of life,
and others, be asked to express their opinions; we are thinking, more specifically,
of those who are located in a perimeter comprising a certain amount of danger
from the LNG terminal’s operation, as well as by the pipeline crossing.
(DM371, p. 9)
The GIRAM was also of the opinion that “approval for the project must come first and
foremost from the community that is most affected. The residents who are on the front
line of a project must have their say; they are the ones who will suffer from the
disruptions and environmental impacts, as well as security risks” (DM461, p. 54). As
such, one participant stated that, “in this case, the proponent’s interest is passing
ahead of the collective interest. This is a sharp blow to the great basic principles of
liberty and democracy chosen by our society” (Mr. Louis Bastien, DM108, p. 3).
1. Ms. Chantal Lacasse, DM163, p. 2; Mr. Jean-Guy Allard, DT15, p. 40; Mr. Louis Duclos, DM458, p. 12.
Rabaska Project – Implementation of an LNG Terminal and Related Infrastructure 65