Report - Agence canadienne d'évaluation environnementale

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Opinions of participants Moreover, the “Not in My Backyard” syndrome was abundantly referred to as a reason to explain the defence of interests from residents living nearby (Ms. Christina Jobin, DM8, p. 1; Mr. Stéphane Labrie, DT16, p. 57). Viewed by many as being a pejorative expression, several participants denounced the use of the “Not in My Backyard” designation to describe their interests, which they believed was not representative of their reality and the interests they defend (Ms. Marie-Pierre Fortier, DM640, p. 1; Mr. Mario Fortier, DM572, p. 1; Mr. Yves St-Laurent, DM377, p. 20). Sustainable development For some participants, the integration of sustainable development principles is closely linked to the project’s social acceptability. One participant added in this respect: The proponents of the Rabaska LNG terminal project committed themselves publicly many times […] to never impose their project and to work in harmony with the population. This project is moving farther and farther away from social acceptability and sustainable development principles. (Ms. Céline Létourneau, DM594, p. 2) One citizen challenged the sustainable aspect of the project: “In life, no one wants to lose or sell their property for a project which doesn’t respect sustainable development principles, as this is a vital and personal asset” (Ms. Gabrielle Larose, DM26, p. 2). From the perspective of Québec solidaire, “the Rabaska project doesn’t fall within the scope of sustainable development principles at all, as it doesn’t respect any of the three pillars which are essential for this type of development, […] i.e. protecting the environment, social justice and long-term economic viability” (DM466, p. 24). The organization Vision développement durable was of the opinion that: Having performed a detailed examination of a good many parameters which characterize the development planned, it appears that the project to build an LNG terminal at Lévis isn’t sustainable for at least three of the four essential components of sustainable development, i.e. those of the society, of the environment and of consistency. (DM375, p. 15) Consequently, some participants 1 wondered about the project’s degree of compliance with sustainable development principles with respect to the future impacts of the project, and because of its low degree of integration with social and environmental aspects. One participant among others was of the opinion that the project must be rejected because of the many uncertainties linked to safety and environmental impacts on future generations (Mr. Marcel Gaudreault, DM585, p. 9). Some asked the Panel to 1. Québec solidaire, DM466, p. 2; Ms. Lise Thibault, DM436, p. 18; Ms. Suzanne Rochon, DM536, p. 6; Ms. Lise Lachance, DM603, p. 6; Ms. Annie Marcoux and Mr. André Voros, DM631, p. 9; GIRAM, DM461, p. 94 66 Rabaska Project – Implementation of an LNG Terminal and Related Infrastructure
Opinions of participants assess the project according to the project’s integration in a perspective of sustainable development, and social acceptability should be assessed from this viewpoint: In a sustainable development perspective, the principles of which are now set out in a Québec provincial law, social acceptability was evoked many times as an imperative condition to get the green light for high-risk projects such as Rabaska. (Ms. Diane Simard, DM433, p. 5) Rabaska Project – Implementation of an LNG Terminal and Related Infrastructure 67
Page 1 and 2:
Bureau d’audiences publiques sur
Page 3:
Ms. Line Beauchamp Minister of Sust
Page 6 and 7:
In terms of its integration into th
Page 9 and 10:
Table of contents Opinions and reco
Page 11 and 12:
Table of contents Land use and appl
Page 13:
Table of contents Project impacts o
Page 16 and 17:
List of figures and tables Table 5
Page 18 and 19:
Opinions and recommendations reques
Page 20 and 21:
Opinions and recommendations Opinio
Page 22 and 23:
Opinions and recommendations needs
Page 24 and 25:
Opinions and recommendations Enviro
Page 27 and 28:
Introduction The Rabaska LNG termin
Page 29 and 30:
Introduction The terminal would als
Page 31:
Introduction encompasses biophysica
Page 38 and 39:
Opinions of participants firmly opp
Page 40 and 41:
Opinions of participants One partic
Page 42 and 43: Opinions of participants DT33, p. 1
Page 44 and 45: Opinions of participants Many were
Page 46 and 47: Opinions of participants “a price
Page 48 and 49: Opinions of participants Climate ch
Page 50 and 51: Opinions of participants reached, t
Page 52 and 53: Opinions of participants l’enviro
Page 54 and 55: Opinions of participants In contras
Page 56 and 57: Opinions of participants Moreover,
Page 58 and 59: Opinions of participants Some parti
Page 60 and 61: Opinions of participants […] we w
Page 62 and 63: Opinions of participants monuments
Page 64 and 65: Opinions of participants area […]
Page 66 and 67: Opinions of participants On another
Page 68 and 69: Opinions of participants A certain
Page 70 and 71: Opinions of participants participan
Page 72 and 73: Opinions of participants from perpe
Page 74 and 75: Opinions of participants proponent
Page 76 and 77: Opinions of participants We are per
Page 78 and 79: Opinions of participants The risk a
Page 80 and 81: Opinions of participants Should an
Page 82 and 83: Opinions of participants Some parti
Page 84 and 85: Opinions of participants use our co
Page 86 and 87: Opinions of participants It can see
Page 88 and 89: Opinions of participants underscore
Page 90 and 91: Opinions of participants There is a
Page 95 and 96: Chapter 2 Project energy context Th
Page 97 and 98: Project energy context ♦ Finding
Page 99 and 100: Project context at the Quebec - Ont
Page 101 and 102: Project energy context As for Quebe
Page 103 and 104: Project energy context The proponen
Page 105 and 106: Figure 3 Territorial breakdown of G
Page 107 and 108: Project energy context and the comm
Page 109 and 110: Project energy context implementati
Page 111 and 112: Chapter 3 Economic context of the p
Page 115 and 116: The project’s economic spin-offs
Page 117: The structuring potential of the pr
Page 120 and 121: Territorial context of the project
Page 126: Territorial context of the project
Page 134: Territorial context of the project
Page 142 and 143:
Assessing the risks related to the
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166:
Page 170:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182:
Page 186:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 199 and 200:
Chapter 6 Social acceptance of the
Page 201 and 202:
Social acceptance of the project By
Page 203 and 204:
Social acceptance of the project -
Page 205:
Social acceptance of the project
Page 208 and 209:
Impacts on the inhabited area and h
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226:
Impacts on the natural environment
Page 230:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Conclusion In order to optimize the
Page 255 and 256:
References ASSOCIATION DES PLUS BEA
show all

Report - Agence canadienne d'évaluation environnementale

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?