Top
BAPE Verbatims Index / Pipeline Blues Index
TABLE DES MATIèRES
SÉANCE DU 30 juillet 1997
MOT DU PRÉSIDENT
LE PRÉSIDENT:
PRÉSENTATION DES MÉMOIRES:
M. JEAN-GUY RAYMOND, M. MICHEL SAUCIER et M. RENÉ WALASZCZYK
M. JEAN-MARC SAINT-HILAIRE
MME DENIS BRODEUR-RIENDEAU
MME LUCETTE DEPADOVA et M. GIRARD DE LABADIE
MME DENISE SAVAGE
M. JEAN-CLAUDE CHAPLEAU
M. JEAN-SÉBASTIEN CHAPLEAU
M. LUCIEN RIENDEAU
M. NORMAND FORTIN
DROIT DE RECTIFICATION:
M. JEAN TRUDELLESOIRÉE DU 30 JUILLET 1997
MOT DU PRÉSIDENT
THE CHAIRMAN:
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the second portion of these public hearings on the extension of the TQM gas line from Lachenaie to East Hereford. My name is Camille Genest, Chair of this Commission. I'm assisted by Jean Paré and Mr. Charles Cloutier, members of the Bureau.
There are the members of the team: Mme. Danielle Paré, analyst; Mylène Savard, secretary; and Mme. France Carter, secretary also; the stenographers, Mme. Rinaldi for the English portion and the transcription. The interpretation services are under the responsibility of Mme. Debra Stoppel. The technical services are insured by the Ministry of Immigration and Intercultural Relations lead by Mr. Daniel Moisan and Mr. Jean Métivier.
The second portion of this BAPE consultation process covers the submission of briefs to the Commission. You can present your briefs verbally or by filing them with an explanation. Anybody from a municipality or group that wants to take a position on the project or on any element related to the file can do so. The participants can submit their briefs based on an order agreed upon with Mrs. France Carter beforehand.
All documents related to the second portion will be available at the consultation centres, as well as the transcripts as soon as possible. These consultation centres are located at the Coaticook library, Memphremagog library in Magog, municipal library in Ste- Julie, municipal library in Granby, the centre communauté Roussin reception, as well as at the office of the BAPE in Quebec City and Montreal, and in the central library of the University of Quebec in Montreal. The relevant documents will be available in the public hearings behind the room with the secretary of the Commission.
Just a reminder with respect to the impact assessment process and the role of the BAPE, the first portion of the hearings were the participants who wanted to were able to ask questions to the Commission, and these were then asked to the developers as well as different resource people who were available to the Commission. Additional questions were forwarded to the latter after the first portion of the hearings, and answers were filed at the consultation centres. A few answers are still being awaited, but most of the questions have been answered.
This evening, we are starting the second portion which has to do with the issue of notices and opinions on project. Once this is over, the Commission will analyze it and integrate into its own analysis on the project. The analysis and recommendations of the Commission will be filed in a report submitted to the Minister of Environment and Wildlife on November 9th. According to the regulations, the Minister has sixty (60) days to make the report public.
Now, with respect to the schedule for the second portion, it is as follows. We held a first session in Montreal on July 28th, Monday. This evening, we have a session here in Granby, the only one. There won't be any session tomorrow. The number of briefs doesn't justify it. We will hold another session at the Pub de la Gorge on Michaud Street in Coaticook on the 4th and 5th of August, and also at the Salle paroissiale, St-Jean de Bosco, 900 Sherbrooke Street in Magog on the 6th and 7th of August.
Before calling on the first participant, I would like to remind you about the rules as giving details for the second session. Once the participants present their briefs, the Commission will ask some questions to try to get a handle on all the arguments presented or to obtain additional information.
In addition, there is a right of rectification to correct facts or inaccurate facts issued during the session. Now, this right is available to everybody, and it could be used at the end of the session. Those who want to exercise this right should advise Mme. France Carter or Mylène Savard accordingly. They are at the back of the room.
At the end of each session, there will be a period allocated for the rectification of facts and data, if necessary. This right of rectification applies only to facts. It does not apply to opinions. And the right of rectification is available only to correct facts and erroneous data stated during the session.
I would like to remind you that the Commission is looking for a
calm and serene environment. I wish all a good hearing for the second
portion regarding the project extension of the gas line for TQM.
I would like to call on the representatives of the UPA St-
Hyacinthe, Mr. Jean-Guy Raymond, Mr. Michel Saucier, and Mr. René
Walaszczyk. Good evening, we have got twenty (20) minutes for you.
You decide the time you want to take, and any time that is left over,
it will depend on how long you take to present your brief, and the
rest of the time will be taken up for discussions with members of the
Commission.
MR. JEAN-GUY RAYMOND:
Good evening, the Commission and the BAPE .... for allowing us
to present a brief at these hearings. We will try to summarize our
brief. I have Mr. Michel Saucier who will summarize the brief. And
then, we will follow up with the rest of the presentation.
MR. MICHEL SAUCIER:
I believe you have a copy of the brief. As a preamble, you have
got a presentation of our organization, La Fédération de l'UPA de St-
Hyacinthe. On page 2, you have got a description of the territory
that we cover. That extends north...; south from Sorel to the U.S.
border along the Richelieu River; from east to west, from Iberville to
Waterloo. And the farming location, of course, is not in that.
Eighty-five percent (85%) of our territories are in the green area and
close to five thousand (5,000) farms and six thousand five hundred
(6,500) operators. Most of them, major agricultural productions are
carried out.
In our region, you have got commercial cultures, dairy, swine,
cattle, grain, apples, produce, and other vegetables. There are about
a hundred and fifty (150) companies involved in food processing and a
few institutional jewels including the Food Development Research
Centre, the Artificial Insemination Centre, and several other
important organizations in the agri-food sector.
The Fédération de l'UPA works to enrich the region and improve
the performance of our industry on the market. Our governments are
reducing the assistance provided to the agricultural sector, and more
and more producers have to take actions that would stimulate medium
and long-term development of the agri-food sector.
The inclusion of the gas line in our sector is one of the
measures to be taken, if we have to remain competitive. The producers
in the other regions are ahead of us, but we are prepared to compete
with them.
In terms of a preamble, you can see the purpose of our
intervention. On the next page, you have got the reasons why we are
here. First of all, with respect to the infrastructures, the gas
infrastructures, there is a certain number of disadvantages or
inconveniences related to the passage of this line or construction and
maintenance work. There is a certain number of points we would raise
with respect to this ... is concerned.
And, secondly, when the agricultural community sees the
construction of gas lines passing through their land without their
being able to use it, we would like to raise our voices in this regard
considering that most of the clienteles for these lines are industrial
and urban clienteles.
Among the disadvantages related to the servitude and the right
of way, I'm going to be quite fast here on these points, because these
are technical points. We have already sent them to the TQM, and the
negotiating process is already underway, but we wanted the Commission
to be aware of it also.
Article 3.1, what we want to do is amend this section. The
developer should operate only one (1) gas line and not several
potential products.
Article 4.5, we are asking that this article include now, with
respect to all work regarding the cleaning of the right of way and so
on, that these works should be done in keeping with environmental
standards with respect to the products that would be used, and the
method used should not harm the different products or harvests of the
owner.
On the next page, article 5.1, what we are asking for is that
this article be amended, so that it provides for the compensation for
any contamination or pollution, and that that should be treated
according to articles 19 and 20 of the Environmental Quality Act, and
that a specific reference for any damage that could be caused, damage
present or future resulting from the presence of the pipeline or any
activities carried out by the developer. So, we want the Act to be
modified in that regard.
Article 5.2, we are asking that they remove this article that
deals with the construction of an additional pipeline and compensation
equal to fifty percent (50%) of the market value, simply because
before we had asked for only one (1) pipeline, one (1) project. So,
that goes without saying that we should ask for all other pipelines
not to be included in this contract.
Article 5.4, what we want to do is basically add the expression
"or contiguous lands" after the word right of way, considering that
this article deals with the burial and maintenance of the pipeline.
Now, you could have overflows from other services. You could have
other agricultural work that could be done around the right of way,
but we should add the words "contiguous lands", because, in many
cases, it goes without saying.
On the following page, during the period of work, we want to
make sure that the company can install crosses over the trenches, as
long as the work hasn't been completed, and that this soil has not
been restored. They should do this to allow the owner to have access
to their property on either side of the trench. So, that point is
related to the previous article.
Now, 5.12, what we have is that, with the exception of article
5.3 then, we are asking that the company have no right to erect a
fence around the right of way without the consent of the owner or
unless such is ordered by the National Energy Board.
Article 6.2, what we want to do is add to this text, the text of
this article, that the company should compensate the owner in
conformity with article 5.1 already mentioned, if the company decides
to reconstruct the pipeline, or change it, or remove it, or replace
it, or whatever, or if there is any other work done, that should be
done in conformity with article 5.1, which already talks about the
terms of compensation, but also respecting the environmental laws.
6.3, we want to modify the abandonment clause, abandonment of
the use of the right of way. What we want is that this should be
interpreted as being the termination of the operation of the pipeline
for a continuous period of three (3) years. Now, there should be a
three (3) year prescription with the specification of measures that
the company should take in the case or in the event that it leaves a
pipeline there or decides to remove it.
Now, if it decides to remove it, the measures should be
specified. If it decides to leave it there, a series of measures
should also be specified. But basically if the company decides to
leave the pipeline where it is, it should remain responsible for the
pipeline. That is basically what we are talking about. As long as the
pipeline is in the ground, the company should be responsible for it.
Article 8 is another point that was brought up during our
meetings with the producers. There may be a situation where people
are not satisfied with the compensation measures. The negotiating
process or arbitration process is not always easy. So, we are asking
that an arbitration method be set up, that there could be arbitration
before, arbitrators selected by the parties, and the amounts would be
no less than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), the amounts involved.
Now, the purpose of this would be to avoid the procedure of
arbitration process right now, which is quite complex, and that is
based on the act respecting the National Energy Board. We want the
owners to be able to select arbitrators from the Province of Quebec.
Now, the second point we want to draw attention to is on page 8.
Well, let me read it to you. Our concern regarding our presence
before the Commission has to do with the fact that the formulas used
right now to determine the profitability of gas projects in urban
areas to the detriment of rural and local areas, yet natural gas is an
interesting alternative for farm producers.
You have got an example of savings of about five thousand
dollars ($5,000.00) with respect to gas. For the entire Province of
Quebec, there would be a decline of thirteen million four hundred and
fifty thousand dollars ($13,450,000.00). Other significant savings
could be carried out with respect to the heating of buildings in the
sector of poultry and so on.
We believe that the construction of the transmission line such
as PNGTS should be accompanied by measures that allow at least for
farmers, residing within the perimeters of reasonable distances of gas
infrastructures, to be able to obtain a supply of natural gas.
Methods to promote the distribution of natural gas in the agricultural
community should be evaluated.
However, we are proposing methods for amending the rules of
profitability when a project is planned. We believe that the
agricultural sector creates jobs. It is in the middle of regional and
local development. And gas distribution projects could have
significant spin-offs for the community, and these are not taken into
account in the construction of transmission lines. Yet, if we knew
the economic benefits related to the installation of gas projects in
the rural community, the extension of the gas system would be
optimized for the benefit of the entire community.
So, obviously, well, this is the trigger, because, in our
region, there are several significant gas projects or transmission
lines basically going through agricultural communities. Now, seeing
these, we want to be able to have access to gas, and we have had this
desire for many years. And we have asked different authorities to
come up with measures to help the agricultural community to have
access to gas.
Thank you very much for listening to us.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Saucier, now you are proposing a certain number
of measures which are quite specific and very practical. I believe
you read in the transcripts that the developer has made a commitment
that there would only be one (1) conduit installed, and they have even
answered they will withdraw article 5.2 of the contract.
You refer to certain articles in the Environmental Quality Act.
Now, obviously, this creates a context when you think about certain
legislative provisions in a contract.
Now, with respect to the crossings over trenches, now, based on
your experience, do the land owners, now during this type of work, do
they continue to move around? Isn't there a problem of safety that is
involved here?
MR. JEAN-GUY RAYMOND:
On that point, I think you have to go to the end of the land.
There has to be some method found to... If the farmers have to
harvest, and if the work is going on, you have to find a way to
continue to do your harvest, if it is possible to find a way to go in
another means of transport. I mean it's possible. We've had cases,
but we want this to be established in the contract, and they shouldn't
say that, you know, there shouldn't be any harvest on any given piece
of land. There should be crossings to allow us to do this, because
sometimes even after it is done or even while it is going on,
sometimes it is hard to go across. And so, we want that this should
be stated very clearly.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Now, with respect to fences, the fact that you mentioned this,
does that mean that you have had some experience with this, that your
members have had unfortunate experiences in this regard?
MR. JEAN-GUY RAYMOND:
Well, it doesn't happen often, but it can happen with certain
producers. Sometimes we had a producer who wanted to do certain
things, and they were prevented from going through. And often, we at
the UPA, we put pressure, and sometimes they remove those, the blocks,
but it should be done automatically.
There is all kinds of things, and sometimes we are able to come
to an agreement, but these things should be clear from the word go.
They should be in a contract right from the beginning. That's why we
are saying this. There are isolated cases, but when it happens, the
producer... It is unfortunate.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Did I pronounce your name correctly, René Walaszczyk?
MR. RENÉ WALASZCZYK:
Okay, good enough, I recognize that when we start having
problems with the names, I know it is my name, but anyway the company
has all kinds of powers with respect to the right of way.
They can prevent you from putting up trees or anything and such,
but what we want to do is have assurances that they shouldn't do
anything there without the producer giving their consent. Because
when we sign off on something like this, there is very little
protection.
In a pipeline clause, for example, at the end of three (3) years
when they abandon the line, you become owner of the pipeline. And
that's why we are saying - and that's in contracts. That's why we
brought it up. Companies usually set up all the guarantees to protect
themselves. That's why we have brought these points up.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Yes, that's an interesting observation of all the provisions.
Now, some of your recommendations go without saying, but it is better
to say them anyways.
MR. JEAN-GUY RAYMOND:
In principle, we are not against the passage of the line, as
long as they come up with the best line possible, but, as an
organization, if we did not get involved, there would be a tendency
for them to go and see the producers. And when they are stuck and
they have to sign, they sign, but we try to prevent this by forming
committees and working as a group.
If we don't do this properly, I mean there are producers who
would end up saying, well, we didn't know this was going to happen.
So, we should have contracts, and they should apply equally to
everybody before they start off. If we don't work together, we would
end up in trouble, and that's what we are trying to avoid.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Okay, you talk about arbitration. You talk about local
arbitrators. How do you see this happening, because this would be
quite different from the current practice? Do you envisage a Quebec
administrative tribunal to be responsible for this? What exactly are
you thinking about?
MR. MICHEL SAUCIER:
Well, basically, the idea that was raised, we didn't go much
further, but, to our knowledge, there has not been a lot of cases
pleaded before the arbitrator or the National Energy Board, and it is
because the developer said that the problems are always solved before.
Well, I can understand that, but at the same time it is a very complex
process, and it dissuades a lot of people.
Now, the amounts do not always justify such a procedure, such a
large scale procedure. So, our comment was that: Couldn't we have our
own small claims court when we have situations that don't require such
measures?
I mean this is obviously an incredible power of negotiation that
puts pressure on both parties. I know it is not easy, but we are
putting this idea out there. Maybe this could allow us to solve
certain problems very quickly.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Okay, now, I don't know if you have any comments on this point.
Mr. Burcombe from yesterday pointed out that, in his mind, he thinks
that the UPA has been bought out by the developer with their
agricultural project.
MR. MICHEL SAUCIER:
No, on that, we don't agree at all. As I said, we agree that
they should have the transmission lines, and the point we have trouble
accepting is that they are passing on our lands, and we want to be
served. What we are saying right now is that the line is -everything,
a hundred percent (100%) of the gas is going to the U.S. Now, we are
going to have trouble being served.
What we are saying is if we are able to agree and get some
compensation, then we have no objections. In fact, we have always
agreed to work with, for example, Hydro Quebec, but where we have
trouble is being served. The lines go through our lands, and the
product goes elsewhere.
I mean the costs are significant for the agricultural community.
When we reduce our costs of production, the entire community benefits.
That's why we don't have any objections, but there have always been
promises and promises, but the lines keep going through, and they keep
transmitting the product. There is a few of them, but I mean all the
economic studies done to find the benefits or profits from these
pipelines, gas pipelines, I mean, they take us back to the 1940's.
They always say it is very expensive, very expensive.
So, I mean we have never been against any development. I mean
this is... but the important thing is that we don't want the product
to continue going elsewhere without us being able to use it. The
problem has always existed.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Well, there is nothing that prevents you from being vigilant. I
mean you could... when it comes to the construction.
MR. JEAN-GUY RAYMOND:
Well, on that, we have someone paid by the company to ensure
that... There are all kinds of problems that we try to overcome
before they occur.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Paré.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:
Thank you, Mr. Raymond, with respect to not the last
recommendation, but the last request you make, i.e. having access to
natural gas, well, first of all, you take an example, the example you
give, the drying of corn. Is that something that is used elsewhere?
MR. JEAN-GUY RAYMOND:
Right now, we use propane and not natural gas. We have tried
electricity and others, but natural gas would be more efficient than
propane. We know that propane... Well, there is two (2) or three (3)
companies, and the... If you use natural gas, the price would be
quite different. We saw it last year and a few years ago. From time
to time, the price of propane goes down, but the figures that we are
giving you here are six dollars ($6.00) per ton. That's real.
When we serve the big lines, all the big companies use it, and
they use natural gas. They say transportation is expensive, but we
can help you to dry your corn. We know that if we don't have natural
gas, we are going to use propane.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:
Okay, you just started answering my second question. Are there
other areas where other drying companies have access to natural gas?
MR. JEAN-GUY RAYMOND:
Yes, some producers have some access, but the problem is when
you look at the profitability of a project, you... We have seen that
some work has been done, (inaudible), but some of the... We find it
unfortunate when they start a project, they start a new project, they
forget everything that has been done before, things that we find quite
deplorable.
MR. RENÉ WALASZCZYK:
Well, we only give one (1) example here, but there are several
other applications that could be done. We know that this is less
polluting. Natural gas is less polluting than other hydrocarbons.
Once we have access to it, there is no limit to what we can use it
for: heating the buildings, engines, super engines, that use natural
gas. We have got fridges. You have got stoves and all kinds of
things. There is no limit to the use we can make of it, but the
problem, as Mr. Raymond said, is having access to it.
And right now, what we see, a transmission line is not so much
lines - we don't have lines that will be serving Quebec or Canada.
These lines are going directly to the United States. Whether it is
this line or other lines, it is they who have access. The lines are
going through our lands, but we don't have access to the product for
economic reasons.
Perhaps there are ways that could be explored. For example, why
couldn't we have a percentage of the construction that these companies
would deposit in a fund to help distribution in the rural or farming
community? I mean that's one way, and there are others.
We are taking advantage of these hearings here today to try to
push our ideas forward. We have been talking about this for years,
but we always get the same answer. This is a transmission line. It
has got nothing to do with distribution. Yet, in this particular
case, Gaz Metropolitain, which distributes a product, is a partner.
There is no will. We don't feel that there is any will. There
is a few producers who have access to this energy at a time when there
is construction. They take advantage. We have put all kinds of
pressure. I mean as somebody said, UPA has been involved. Well, it
has provided a contract. We negotiated as much as we can, and we
managed to get service to certain producers sometimes, but there is a
limit to our patience.
And we know that, one way or the other, the further we go, the
fewer farm producers have access to this, because only those that are
profitable are interesting to the company. The rest of them are
rejected. And the more we go this way, the less access most of the
producers will have. That's what we wanted you to understand today.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:
Now, the formula that you are proposing, would that be sort of a
pooling of producers that could buy the natural gas?
MR. JEAN-GUY RAYMOND:
There are several methods.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:
Well, we don't need details.
MR. JEAN-GUY RAYMOND:
There is another method. All the infrastructures have to be
paid in five (5) years according to the law, but that doesn't make
sense. There is very little that can be paid in five (5) years in the
agricultural community. I mean why don't you put it over twenty (20)
years, amortize it over twenty (20) years? I mean that - we don't
really - I don't know. Maybe other industries can survive that way,
but, in agricultural, it is impossible. For several large
municipalities or large industries, maybe it works.
But as we said before, if they go through our areas, you can see
there are buildings that can be heated with natural gas, but they
don't come to our places, and it is like we are going around in
circles. In the west, we have travelled a bit, and most of the
tractors use propane. It is less polluting than diesel, but anyway it
is about the same engine. They don't change a heck of a lot, the same
tank, and they fill the tank. But if they don't go through, well, we
are not going to get anything.
MR. RENÉ WALASZCZYK:
And I'll add to that. In the west provinces, a report that we
had a few years ago, I don't know if it is still like that, but a few
years ago they said when the companies went on farmland, they at least
had laws talking about taking away the right of way at some point,
that the companies had to take the right of way away at some point.
Here, we don't have that in Quebec.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Thank you; Mr. Cloutier.
MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner:
In the presentation that you made in the beginning, in your
document, we see that the territory that you represent includes dairy
and cattle and chicken-raising farms.
MR. JEAN-GUY RAYMOND:
Yes, those are the main things. We do all kinds of production
on our territory. We gave the most important ones, but we didn't give
you an exhaustive list.
MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner:
So, you have a rather diverse and complete animal-raising
business.
MR. JEAN-GUY RAYMOND:
Yes, we are the second in dairy and the first in many other
things: cattle and chicken and so on.
MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner:
Alright, so, it was mentioned earlier that there were some
producers that were worried about the question of noise. Now, in your
document here, you refer to article 4, where you talk about
maintaining the right of way. Now, my question is the following. In
managing this right of way, this servitude, was there any discussion
in your organization about the noise that could happen through the
corridor because of planes and so on? Were there any farmers that
were worried about that?
MR. JEAN-GUY RAYMOND:
Well, really, the noise, unless it is all the time, it is not
one of our main concerns. I mean it is not twenty-four (24) hours a
day, seven (7) days a week. So, we are not that worried about the
noise.
MR. RENÉ WALASZCZYK:
Yes, during the time of construction, when it was being built
and when they were near the barns, there was more noise. I mean this,
however, and what we know about our region, we didn't have this kind
of problem later for maintenance and surveillance. We didn't have any
reports like that from our producers.
MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner:
Okay, I have just one more question. On page 4, you say that
you would like to add after the word easement "or contiguous fields".
Could you explain what you mean by that?
MR. JEAN-GUY RAYMOND:
Well, when you have a trench, you don't just fill it up. A
farmland has to drain properly. So, they have to clean it up
properly, so that they have to put the farm back in the condition that
it was before they came once the easement is over.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Okay, thank you for your presentation and thank you for those
answers; now, I would like to call Mr. Jean-Marc Saint-Hilaire.
MR. JEAN-MARC SAINT-HILAIRE:
Mr. President and Commissioners, I am here on a personal level,
but I wanted my intervention to be also of a more general use. So,
I'm going to talk on my personal case first. And then, I'm going to
talk about the problems of having several easements on a single field
or on a single property. So, I have a slide that is going to
illustrate this. Do you mind if I put it up?
THE CHAIRMAN:
Go right ahead.
MR. JEAN-MARC SAINT-HILAIRE:
First of all, to position the problem, I live in Stukely South
on Chemin de la Diligence, which is located between the village of
Stukely-Sud here and Waterloo here. So, this is the Chemin de la
Diligence, this straight line right here. Now, I have lived here
since 1971.
In 1983, they built a first pipeline. At that time, there was
an old servitude from Hydro Quebec that even existed at the time of
Southern Electric. So, there were two (2) servitudes at the time, and
they wanted then to add a third.
So, the problem is located right here. Here is a pond. You can
see the little buildings here near the road. So, this pond has been
there since forever. It is on very, very old maps. It is a natural
pond. It has always existed. When I came in 1971, there was a little
brook, because here is some land that is a little hilly. So, the
water drained down, went into a brook, and came into this pond. And
then, the brook continued at the other side of the pond.
Then, in 1983, when they did their first set of work, the pond
merely dried up. And then, once the pipeline went through, the pond
filled up with sand. And right now, instead of six (6) or eight (8)
feet of water, there is just one (1) foot of water. So, there is
still a lot of ducks and wildlife who still use this pond.
In 1983, when the discussions took place, we were promised that
they would come back and check after one (1) year, and come and check
after five (5) years. I even consulted Bélanger Sauvé, a lawyer firm
in Montreal, to help me taking these steps.
And now, the same developers who said they would look after
this, and come and see the pond and make sure everything was in order,
and see if the pond could continue the way it was, they never came. I
insisted. I tried to find who was there. These people had sold the
property. There was nobody who was responsible anymore.
So, I think that when you add another dam, a seventy-five (75)
feet one, all of this drainage will disappear, and this pond will
disappear. So, it is a particular problem, but still it is
significant. So, there is one of the reasons why I object to this
layout for the pipeline.
Now, I can maybe go back and sit down for the rest of my
presentation.
There is also a problem with having several easements on the
same land. On Chemin de la Diligence, the only reason I found in the
whole document that I consulted at the University of Quebec, the only
reason for going at this area here was the fact that there was already
the 1983 pipeline there, and that there was a previous servitude for
Hydro Quebec.
Now, maybe you would remember that, in the old hearings, it was
brought up in Montreal what is the problem with multiple easements on
the same property. And Mr. Delisle said that there were no other
places considered, since there was already an easement right there.
So, they just added up. So, this is going to be the third one, and
this one is coming from the first one from Hydro Quebec.
And when you asked Mr. Delisle what were the reasons, what were
the motivations that they had to use an old easement, and Mr.
Delisle's answer was that, in the past, there was no environmental
consideration, but that we simply took the shortest route. So, for
the third easement, the only consideration basically is that, seventy-
five (75) years ago, somebody decided it was the shortest route.
Now, in the future, each time there is an easement, if we don't
stop this vicious cycle, owners will have their land cut in half.
Their property will be devalued, and they will have no say in it, and
all this because, seventy-five (75) years ago, somebody made an
unrational decision. So, I think this is a second reason to refuse
the layout, the proposed layout of the pipeline today.
And also, we should also consider what are the impacts of
multiple easements. Well, I am not an expert, but I think you asked
the question of Mr. Delisle, and nobody could answer. But, for me, as
an owner and as a citizen, I notice that there will be many more
easements in the future. So, if we accept the fact that there are
already several easements and that you don't even consider any other
layout, then you are simply going to continue on the same behaviour
model without any logical reasoning.
Secondly, you should also consider that this considerably
devalues the value of our land. If somebody knows, for example, there
is already three (3) easements, and that a fourth and a fifth might be
added, well, this is certainly going to modify the purchaser's
attitude.
There is also the possibility of multiple environmental effects.
The first pipeline nearly caused this natural pond to disappear, a
pond which was there for hundreds of years. And the second pipeline
will certainly make that pond disappear all together. And if, by some
miracle, the pond were to survive the third easement, it certainly
would not survive the fourth one. So, the environmental impacts
multiply in proportion to the multiplication of the easements.
As a citizen, I am a bit concerned about this pipeline, because
I do not think it is a public service. The first gas line, well, we
were very much pressured to accept it, saying that there would be no
damages and so on. And now that we have been through it, we know that
it doesn't correspond to what they said at all. So, now, this is not
even a public service. So, we shouldn't have to put up with the
effects of it. It is simply a commercial undertaking, and the
National Energy Board have not even granted authorization for it to
date.
And then, these are the same developers who were there in 1983,
and I do not trust these developers, because I had proof that they did
not meet their commitments.
Finally, this pipeline will only be used to transport gas from
Nova Scotia to the United States, and, therefore, the gas will only be
transiting here. We have no control over the source. The source may
be stopped or may have problems, and we have no say in it whatsoever.
So, now, I would be pleased to answer your questions.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Saint-Hilaire, I recall our exchange about the
pond in the first session. And at that time, the developer presented
a possible solution. Did you analyze that?
MR. JEAN-MARC SAINT-HILAIRE:
Well, no solution, he said maybe we can do something. He didn't
propose any solution. He says, oh, we can do something, but that's
it. I had, in 1983, the same experience, and experts came. They came
and saw the pond, and they guaranteed us that they would look after
it. And if anything happened, that they would look after it, but
never, never, never did they really follow up on it. Now, this
promoter never proposed a solution. They said we would do something,
when they never did anything, nothing that could be controlled by an
expert.
THE CHAIRMAN:
So, you had no discussion with that person since then?
MR. JEAN-MARC SAINT-HILAIRE:
Yes, I met with Mr. Delisle, and he never proposed any solution.
And, finally, and this is not the only reason why I'm opposed to it.
It is not just the pond. The pond is just an illustration. I would
like another layout to be considered, and that this one should simply
not exist simply because other easements are there.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Okay, I understand this. I want to go into that, but first I
would like to ask you to comment on the pond, which, I understand, is
a particular case that you are presenting as an illustration of a
broader issue. Now, the state of information on the subject is that
there has been no solution proposed.
MR. JEAN-MARC SAINT-HILAIRE:
None.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Okay, now, for the multiplication of easements on a single
property, I think you are right when you say that there is nothing
automatic. It shouldn't be automatic. It is not because there is an
easement there, that there should be a second and third easement added
to it. And the proof is that we presented the fact that there was the
current Montreal/Portland oil line, which shouldn't automatically be
used insofar as there is a layout that exists since the 1940's, and it
goes through some very precious wetlands.
So, the fact that an easement exists is not an automatic
justification. There must be evaluation each time. So, on the
principles of this thing, I agree that the experts have to agree.
And also, you mentioned that, the TQM project, that you have no
benefit from it, but you did learn about the point of consolidation
and alimentation in Quebec, especially in Coaticook, Montreal East,
and a certain number of regions, Granby, that would be benefited by
this pipeline.
MR. JEAN-MARC SAINT-HILAIRE:
Well, I understood that this line, as I see it, according to the
documents I consulted, it is going from Montreal to the U.S. border.
And from Montreal to the U.S. border, I didn't think it was going to
go through any city for the citizens of Quebec. I thought it was a
direct line that goes directly from Montreal to the U.S. border and to
New England.
But the entire line that concerns me and this entire group is
the part of the line, and I think even the people in St-Hyacinthe said
it, that nobody will be connected to this gas line. I'm not talking
about the first one where there was deviations to the main cities.
This one is simply a main transport line, direct transport between
Montreal and the States, unless I misunderstood something.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Yes, you did misunderstand something. The developer, at the
rectification period, will be able to make the necessary comments.
Alright, now, you made an analysis that appears to me to be a deep
consideration of the phenomenon of multiple easements. Please comment
further on the disadvantages and prejudices that the pipeline could
create in terms of multiple easements.
MR. JEAN-MARC SAINT-HILAIRE:
Well, I brought up the point of devaluation. This is not a
minor thing. I have a country house since 1971, and I did major
improvements to that country home. And the evaluation of this home
and the field was three hundred and fifty thousand dollars
($350,000.00), and the value doesn't come from farming obviously,
because three-quarters of it is in the forest and a quarter of it is
in unused land. So, it is just the area where it is located. In
terms of the ecology of it, how it looks, it is a beautiful region
with hills and valleys.
And the fact that there is an easement going through it and
maybe other easements, it all devaluates the value of that property.
And it is not the offer of a few thousand dollars which will
compensate for the loss, for the devaluation. The devaluation is
major because of the type of house that is there. I could show you
photos. There is a tennis court, and a pool, and a lot of things. It
is a house of a high quality, which loses a great deal of value.
And I think that, as a land owner, it is our right to worry
about things like this. I don't think we should give way to these
kinds of corporations, who devalue your property, and that we should
sit there with no resistance.
Now, the fact that there is already easements, and then they use
an argument that there is already easements, therefore we might as
well just add another one, that's an argument that could continue in
the future. Who says in five (5) years they won't say, well, since
there is already easements, we will just put more easements. Because
of that, they don't consider another line because of the fact that
there is an easement there. That, in itself, is a disadvantage.
Then, there were the environmental effects. Every time you take
seventy-five (75) feet of land right in the middle of a property,
imagine the disorganization of the land that is added to that. And
what we are also going through is that these are these kinds of
trenches right through the forest. And because of that, it is a welt
in our region, and it creates a lot of activity: four by four's in the
summer, ski-doos in the winter. It is like an all terrain vehicle
playground. So, these go right next to our house. And these are
problems that we have every day, and there could be others.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Paré.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:
Mr. Saint-Hilaire, I understand what you are saying when you say
that you want to resist something that you feel is against you, and
that there is also a monetary compensation mechanism in our society,
which is governed by the rules of law.
So, what I want to ask you is that, given the principle that
seems to be recognized in many areas and that the Commission will
examine very attentively and with a critical eye, and which consists
in putting in parallel, insofar as possible, a new infrastructure
where one already exists, so that if the gazoduc could be put in the
same easement with a minimum width, this would be the case in the
United States, but anyway it's a hypothesis that I'm talking about,
would the gas line be more acceptable?
MR. JEAN-MARC SAINT-HILAIRE:
No.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:
Why?
MR. JEAN-MARC SAINT-HILAIRE:
Well, for the simple reason that you know that a gazoduc - I
lived an entire year with a gas line right near my house. You can't
live there. You can't go there. I have a tennis court there. It is
a hundred (100) feet from the line. It is like a highway, a highway
of bulldozers, of trucks, with dust, and especially where we live,
because it is on rocks. So, they are dynamiting all summer.
Imagine, they were telling us two (2) summers ruined. Now, this
house that I keep just for my vacation time, the only reason I pay for
this whole place is to have it for the summer. Now, if I can't have
it for two (2) summers, that's too much, a lot of money lost, a lot of
money that I invested that I can't lose.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:
Okay, Mr. Saint-Hilaire, excuse me for interrupting you, you are
telling me that the first summer's work lasted two (2) years?
MR. JEAN-MARC SAINT-HILAIRE:
No, it lasted one (1) summer from spring to fall. And then,
they did readjustments the next year. There was work that was still
carried out the following summer. The first summer was continual,
because they circulate by the line. This is also their highway. I
mean it is like a highway of enormous trucks with dynamite. I mean,
listen, it was not livable. There was dust all over the place. It
was unlivable, unhabitable. I felt I couldn't even live in that house
for the entire summer.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:
Okay, are these questions that you spoke to the representatives
about?
MR. JEAN-MARC SAINT-HILAIRE:
Yes, and they offered me three thousand dollars ($3,000.00) for
the land and three thousand dollars ($3,000.00) for the wood they are
cutting down. That's all they offer.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:
Have you talked with them about different procedures, different
construction procedures?
MR. JEAN-MARC SAINT-HILAIRE:
No, I, first of all, would like to see another line proposed or
tell me that it is impossible to go in any other direction for --
MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:
You mean on your own property?
MR. JEAN-MARC SAINT-HILAIRE:
No, elsewhere, I don't know where.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:
You mean a few hundred feet elsewhere or what? Are you talking
about another region?
MR. JEAN-MARC SAINT-HILAIRE:
Well, in another region or on a land that is next to mine, but
not on mine, because I want to break this vicious circle of irrational
multiple easements.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Saint-Hilaire, for your presentation; now, Mme.
Denise Brodeur-Riendeau for the UPA Union, Farmers Union, good
evening.
MRS. DENISE BRODEUR-RIENDEAU:
Good evening, Mr. President and Commissioners, I believe you
have the copies of the documents. I would like to read them, a brief
of the UPA Provençal Union. The UPA Provençal Union wishes to give
their opinion on the environmental impacts which, in our opinion,
would be minimal on the proposed line that was... and I added the
north Saint-Ange Gardien section. I have added that to the brief
here.
First of all, I want to talk to you about the disadvantages of
the original line. The line is proposed integrally. It is located
lot 6 in the Saint-Ange Gardien parish from lot 51 of the same
cadastre. It goes along the electric lines and cuts in half all
existing drainage systems. At lot 35, you get close to farm buildings
such as pig barns and chicken barns. In some cases, the pipeline goes
in-between the barns, thereby affecting the development of farm
buildings, because you therefore can no longer even add on to your
existing buildings.
Also, noise becomes a major disadvantage, because helicopters go
over the pipeline regularly, and this stresses the animals inside the
barns.
This, therefore, for all these reasons, is why we believe that
the line should be moved to the perimeter of the land.
Second, the advantages of the line proposed by the UPA Union,
given that the most part of the land is wooded, and because the
producers who have these lots need to use the soil in order to spread
lizier(?), because Saint-Ange Gardien already has a surplus of
lizier(?). Also, the little wooded area that remains is mostly a poor
quality and has no value or attraction to be able to get any benefit
from it. And the small amount of the woods that has maple trees is
not being exploited.
Farmlands are, in our opinion, not all identified on the map,
because there was some land that was cleared for farming, and these do
not appear on the maps. There is number 40 and 41, for example. In
the original line, there are point three (.3) kilometres of orchard,
which is very well exploited, while the wooded area includes a small
part of maples which are being operated. And the rest, well, it is
just a question of time.
For the drainage, there is almost no system that is affected
contrary to the original line. Now, this was a handicap for sure.
And then, there is an advantage to consider. It is on the original
land line. The black soil band is very wide and very deep. And then,
in case there was a fire, the environmental impact would be more
catastrophic since black earth is more combustible.
Conclusion, in conclusion, we are aware that the pipelines must
go over farmland, but we believe that they should go in areas where
there are the least disadvantages. We are the guardians of the earth,
and we are very proud of the resources that we hold. We highly esteem
its value. And since it is our job, we know it's our needs and our
richness.
So, that's it, and I have some enclosures, a table, a table of
the soil. I'm looking for it in order here. You have two (2)
petitions. I'll be able to find it in a moment. Here it is. And
then, you have the support letter from our MRC, a support letter from
our parish, Saint-Ange Gardien, from the town council, and then, a
table describing the soil that is on the line that is - the new
proposed line, black earth, and a petition of the producers that ask
for the line to be changed.
THE CHAIRMAN:
The Commission has read your proposal and the new line you
proposed, and we will take into account - well, we will try to ask for
the developer's reaction to the line, but I would like to check with
you based on your experience, because that's what is important to us,
the experience of people who live on the land, and who are closest to
the problems created by such a project.
Now, under the buildings, what, in your view, would be the
acceptable distance from the line to the buildings?
MRS. DENISE BRODEUR-RIENDEAU:
Well, right now, I followed from the beginning, I followed the
deliberations, they are saying that the gas line could be about a
hundred (100) feet, I believe. The gas line could be about a hundred
(100) feet from the buildings. A hundred (100) feet is too close to
the buildings, because as I said before, there have been some changes
made. The farms around here are going to grow, and we are too
limited. If we have the gas lines too close to the buildings, that
would restrict us even more. We would require at least a thousand
(1,000) feet, in my view.
THE CHAIRMAN:
A thousand (1,000) feet?
MRS. DENISE BRODEUR-RIENDEAU:
Well, it is a suggestion. Maybe we can talk to the producers.
I represent the farmers of four (4) parishes. Three (3) parishes are
affected: St-Césaire, Rougemont, and Saint-Ange Gardien. Saint-Ange
Gardien is a small parish. It is a place that has a big integrated
firm.
We have lots of pig barns. There is lots of pig barns and
chicken farms that were developed. Maybe we should ask for their
opinion. I know that I have been informed that the lines were too
close, and that they were inconvenienced also by the noise.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Now, with respect to the noise, apart from the fact that there
is the assumption that the noise would stress the animals, do you have
any access to documents or studies on this, on the specific
measurements?
MRS. DENISE BRODEUR-RIENDEAU:
Well, I read something sent to you by one of my producers,
something regarding a study in this regard. The animals in terms of
the dairy and cattle, well, a cow could actually calve earlier because
of the noise. In my sector, I live in St. Paul d'Abbotsford close to
Yamaska. In my area, we have got delta planes. I don't know if you
know what that is. And the delta planes don't make any noise, but
sometimes they land on a farm. And the animals head toward the fences,
or automatically the animals, their instinct is to go closer to the
fences. They get nervous, the same way as when there is too much wind
or a storm. The animals, you see them all - well, perhaps I'm not
using the correct words, but anyway they all rush to hide in the
counter direction of the wind.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Well, I'm asking you, because Mr. Jean-Guy Raymond told us
earlier on that the little noise from (inaudible) is not too bad.
MRS. DENISE BRODEUR-RIENDEAU:
Well, perhaps he hasn't had any problem in his area in thar
regard, but we, with the Hydro Quebec lines that we have for the
pylons, you know, these are quite high, these pylons. It is not
something that is on the ground, and it bothers the animals.
Now, if you take the example of Hydro Quebec lines, perhaps what
I'm saying now is off topic, but respect to the line, I know there is
an agreement between Hydro and UPA that, in the future of the new
lines, Hydro Quebec, well, I mean this doesn't - it's a bit off topic,
but anyway it is similar. In the situation of new lines, they will
place new lines where it has the least impact on agriculture. And I
learned this from good sources, and that there is a big document that
says that passing lands right in the middle of lands is not very good,
so...
THE CHAIRMAN:
Okay, we have understood that, your outlines, you prefer the
line to go around on the periphery of the lands. Now, the producers
that you represent, are they interested in obtaining a natural gas
supply?
MRS. DENISE BRODEUR-RIENDEAU:
Well, I can confirm to you that, right now, a representative of
Gaz Metropolitain came and met our union in our area. And our
producers have already been visited by two (2) engineers or
representatives from Gaz Metro to determine their needs in terms of
natural gas, and the producers are quite interested. And one of the
producers told me that - a major chicken producer told me that they
would require natural gas, and that they had done some surveys. And I
agree wholeheartedly with the Federation of the UPA Ste-Hyacinthe that
this is a need. The farmers actually need natural gas.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Thank you very much; Mr. Paré, no more questions; Mr. Cloutier,
no questions.
MRS. DENISE BRODEUR-RIENDEAU:
Thank you very much.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Now, I would like to call on Mrs. Lucette Depadova and Mr.
Girard De Labadie.
MRS. LUCETTE DEPADOVA:
Good evening, Mr. Chair, Mr. Commissioners, we would like to
present our concerns, because we are not in agreement with the line
proposed. You have some documents in your possession. I believe you
have as follows. You have a letter dated July 9th sent to Mr. Richard
Daigle, in which we ask a certain number of questions. Some of these
questions will be answered tonight. However, there are certain points
that we would like to present to you.
Now, we bought our property, which is a ten (10) hectare
property because it is not too far from Montreal, St. Mathias. We
were working there at the time. Now, since July 1st, we have been on
retirement, and we were hoping to take advantage of what we had sown
over the past five (5) years.
Now, the passage of a gas line is not - the line is not right on
the edges of the land, but right through the middle of our land. And
why? Well, Mr. Saint-Hilaire talked about this earlier on. He was
also a lawyer. Because there is a multiplication of servitudes and
rights of ways that we are going to have on our land.
Now, there is a first servitude which is a right of way for a
property that was located above ours which, at the beginning, was
enclaved. Right now, it isn't, because, with the right of way, we
have to maintain it, if it is used, and which we have done. That cut
off part of a service, part of our property, part of our area, and we
got nothing in return for that. We also have Hydro Quebec lines going
through our land. So, we have got three (3) servitudes.
Now, if you add the one that TQM wants to impose on us, fifty
percent (50%) of our property would be under servitude, and I find
that's too much. Fifty percent (50%) is enough. Mr. Saint-Hilaire
said it before. If you add a servitude, because there is another one
already, which was more or less well installed at the beginning,
that's ridiculous. And I agree with him, and I support him in his
approach; fifty percent (50%) with all kinds of inconveniences, no.
So, I don't know if you have any other document, but that's a
document where we ask for a modification of the line, and that is
presented in the form of a table. I mean it is not out of ill will
that we are saying we don't want it in our neighbourhood, but it is
just that the new line, the line that is proposed, would cause less
damage both to the owners and for everybody who uses these lands.
Now, in terms of the length, it is identical in both cases.
That's an advantage. The initial line affects two (2) owners. In our
proposal, there is only one (1) owner who will be affected.
The third point with respect to the landscaping, we have had
this property since 1991. We have planted all kinds of trees on it.
So, the visual impact of the pylons and electric lines would be
diminished. So, we have had trees on there for a few years, and most
of the trees go up about a metre and a half. And with the right of
way of the gas line, we would not have any right to plant any more
trees. And, obvious, the visual impact would be affected.
Anther point is that a passage is very narrow. They are going
right through the middle of our property, so much so that a passageway
which is twenty-three (23) metres, it will now go down to eighteen
(18) metres, because the line is eighteen (18) metres from our house.
And the lady before us said, in the case of animals, it is a thousand
(1,000) feet. In our case, it is twenty (20) feet. So, we are
somewhere between the chicken and the pigs, but, anyway, twenty (20)
feet is very, very close.
Now, we had already had a problem with respect to the first
servitude, which is a right of way for some certain gas lines where
tractors and so on had to go through, a lot of heavy equipment. Now,
they were going through near our house, pretty much where the gas line
is going to go through. Now, with all the vibrations, I can tell you
that it was hell. Now, the line was moved around, but now we wind up
with major inconveniences, with fissures and all kinds of things. The
house is what, a hundred (100) years old or so, so...
The next point is that it is going six (6) metres from the
house. That's what I mentioned. In the other case, the closest house
is a hundred (100) metres away. We have a photograph that we can
present to you, showing that the gas line would be equi-distant
between both houses or both properties. Do you want to see the
photograph right now?
THE CHAIRMAN:
Yes, if you don't mind.
MRS. LUCETTE DEPADOVA:
So, we are talking about vibrations. I think everybody agrees,
everybody knows what we are talking about. I am not going to expand
on that. The trees along the road should be protected, but that's
done. We do what we call - what do they call it -directional
drilling. So, we start from our land. We protect the trees. We go
through the road, on the other side, on a hill. Then, it goes along
the river. Everything goes below. And we are told that, technically,
everything is fine, but they start at six (6) metres from our house.
That's very, very close.
Now, we are talking about this famous river. Why? Well,
because we feel that going below the river, in this case, and at that
particular location, would be very, very expensive and complex. In
our proposal, there is no hill over the river. So, the passage would
be much easier with lower costs.
I already talked about, if you add multiple servitudes, fifty
percent (50%) of our surface area, five (5) hectares out of ten (10)
hectares. Ten (10) hectares, that's not a lot. It is a small farm.
I mean we will only end up with five (5) hectares. We don't have any
right to plant anything, to create any roads. We have given up
everything.
Talking about resale, if you add all kinds of problems on the
land, you are not facilitating its resale value. When we purchased
it, by the way, there were two (2) servitudes already on there. Now,
our notary told us to think about this very seriously, and she said,
"Look, think about it before signing, because that's a handicap".
Now, they are adding a third servitude on it. I mean it is going to
be impossible to resell this house.
And for these reasons, well, we are asking that the line be
modified, and that it should go along the next lot, and that would be
on the edge of the lot, not through the middle of a property.
Now, the neighbour in question doesn't live there. These are
agricultural lands. And when they explained to us the way they are
going to go about burying the gas line, we think it is quite
interesting. They are going to remove arable land and so on. And I
think they are going to do the same thing for the neighbour. So, I
don't think there should be any problem there.
So, these are our suggestions. That's a backdrop anyway.
Now, going through the neighbouring lot, the owner has already
been approached, because the Hydro Quebec lines already go through his
land. So, he has already been contacted, and this would continue to
go along through the edge of his land, not in the middle. It is not a
major deviation. It is about what? It would be a lot less drainage
to be cut. That's something that is important.
And since we are talking about evaluation, we have been
explained that there will be some compensation. That's fine, but what
we suggest is that our neighbour should benefit from it.
Now, if our properties don't lose any value, if we can't resell
the property easily, that's our final suggestion, then we would ask
the gas line or the gas company to buy it from us and to give us maybe
two (2) years to try to find another place to live and to continue our
retirement, which, you know, we have been retired for a month or so.
We have no interest whatsoever in moving. We have invested a
lot in this place, a lot of emotions in there, too. We have got
neighbours. We have got our friends. We don't feel like moving, but
if we really had to move, well, we will move. And I can tell you that
reselling this house with this major handicap, we would be kidding
ourselves if we think it is going to be easy. I mean if it is that
easy, let them buy it to prove that it is easy.
That's it.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Thank you, so, the Commission has read your proposal. We will
analyze it. Have you discussed this proposal with the developer?
MRS. LUCETTE DEPADOVA:
Yes, I discussed it once with a person who came to tell us that
the initial line would be modified to take into account certain
things. Now, during the discussion, I said, "Listen, look at the
neighbouring lot". And the gentleman said, "Yes, our eyes are wide
open. We will do this". The next day following this discussion, two
(2) photographers came to the house. They wanted to take photographs
on our land and not on the land of the neighbour.
THE CHAIRMAN:
And to your knowledge, there hasn't been anything --
MRS. LUCETTE DEPADOVA:
No, this evening, we received an answer to some of our questions
with the modified line, which starts about twenty-three (23) metres,
and it ends at eighteen (18) metres, because it is very close to the
house. So, they had to narrow it to eighteen (18) metres. They have
said they are going to avoid certain trees. Fine, but the major items
for us are fifty percent (50%) of the land and the servitude sixteen
(16) metres from the house. That doesn't change. And the resale
value is completely non-existent. So, it's impossible.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Paré.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:
Well, for the time being, what the Commission has in hand is
your request for a modification of the line that you presented to us
as a table. I also understand that you filed other documents. It is
very difficult for us to understand everything, where your proposal
stands, but have you - did you also submit a sketch showing where you
are suggesting that the line go through?
MRS. LUCETTE DEPADOVA:
No, but we were saying that, in the neighbouring lot, it really
should be somewhere between the two (2) lots. We have it at the top.
Go through around line 184 and 86.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:
We are going to try to get some documents that would give us a
visual impact, so that we can see what you are proposing. You are
going to have to - when you talk about changing the lines, we are
going to --
MRS. LUCETTE DEPADOVA:
Well, the line already goes through the gentleman, the
neighbour. It goes through the edge of his land. So, it will
continue, because the original line sort of deviates to come through
our land, our territory. So, they could deviate it slightly along his
lot and go all the way to the road straight.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:
So, going through the line between the St. Baptiste and St.
Mathias parish?
MRS. LUCETTE DEPADOVA:
No, it is still in St. Mathias. We are the last, and he is the
last penultimate.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:
Well, we are going to have to see this. We need a photograph or
a sketch to see this. Do you have a plan of the line here?
MR. GIRARD DE LABADIE:
We have an aerial photograph. It is LG-3. That's the line.
That's on the plan presented by TQM.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:
You are saying LG-3?
MR. GIRARD DE LABADIE:
LG-3 corresponds to the area we are talking about.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:
The various lines? What we want is the piece of line that shows
- what we can see on the picture, but it is very hard for us to figure
out exactly which area you are talking about, because the photograph
is not complete. We are sort of in the dark right here. It is a
little hazy. I don't have any objections, but, listening to you, I
have trouble visualizing what you are telling me, because we don't
have any plans or maps or photographs that illustrate where the line
could go through.
MRS. LUCETTE DEPADOVA:
Could we send you a sketch?
MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:
Well, anything you can send us as a sketch, very simple, just to
give us an idea of where you are suggesting that the line go through.
MRS. LUCETTE DEPADOVA:
Could we do the sketch this evening? Because we could do it.
We have got photographs right here. We could do it very quickly and
hand it to you this evening.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:
That's fine.
MRS. LUCETTE DEPADOVA:
Okay, thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Okay, thank you very much for your testimony, and the Commission
will consider all your comments, thank you; Mrs. Denise Savage.
MRS. DENISE SAVAGE:
Good evening, Mr. Chair, Mr. Commissioners, ladies and
gentlemen, I own a wooded lot over one hundred and seventy-five (175)
acres near the municipality of Stukely South registered under a
company number 90234899 Quebec Inc. I'm from Montreal. I have
decided to live in the Eastern Townships to carry out my second
career, because of the quality of life in the region, the countryside,
the landscape, and the respect for nature that the people have.
I have been a forest producer since 1990. In addition to the
selective cutting of my wood, I also do reforestation. More than
seventeen thousand five hundred (17,500) trees have been planted over
the past five (5) years. The conservation of our forest heritage is
one of the major concerns of my family since the region of the Eastern
Townships is a touristic area with abundant forests and very, very
important area.
I live on the Chemin de la Diligence, a route that is called a
panoramic route declared by the MRC Memphremagog in January, 1987. My
land is at the top of this panoramic road. Those who have the
opportunity to go there would be able to admire a breathtaking view.
You have got a view of a hundred and eighty (180) degrees. At the
top, you can see Mount Orford, and Bromont, and Sutton, Owl Head, Jay
Peak, and several others. This is a magnificent forestry landscape.
My interest, I am directly concerned by other TQM project,
because TQM goes through my land over four hundred and twenty-five
(425) metres and cuts twenty-three (23) metres, plus ten (10) metres
of working area in my mature woodlands and in a part of my reforested
area that has been reforested for the past five (5) years.
I already incurred two (2) servitudes: one of about thirty-three
(33) metres for Hydro Quebec and another of eighteen (18) metres for
Gaz Metropolitain. By taking away another thirty-three (33) metres
next to the two (2) existing servitudes, we will be creating a
corridor of a width of more or less eighty-four (84) metres,
representing more than two hundred and fifty (250) feet in a forest
territory. The impact would be major and difficult to correct, once
the trees are cut.
My opinion, I am completely opposed to this project. I
understand that there is a lot of stake in terms of monetarily and
politically, but we are going to have to stop destroying our trees,
but not everything is allowed in the name of progress. We have to
consider the human being, their property, and their quality of life.
The information that TQM has given us is still fragmentary.
Everything is beautiful. There is no risk. You will be compensated
for your troubles, and we pay well. However, all the problems, all
the inconveniences, and particularly the hazards have not been
mentioned. They have been completely overlooked. It is only all the
questions of the citizens, who are concerned, that have enabled us to
learn more, but we still don't have specific answers from the
developer.
I have several concerns. I have got environmental concerns,
safety concerns, concerns about compensation, and also about
execution.
Environmental concerns, they are creating an immense deforested
corridor in an incomparable green zone. TQM will create visual
environmental impacts associated with the creation of these vast
corridors. You expect such corridors along the highway, but not right
in the forest, especially in a recreational and touristic area, which
is highly dense. This would be an environmental disaster. Now,
cutting the forested area in two (2), what will be the value for this?
They are doing clear cutting for a few dollars. The government is
asking us to avoid these steps, destroying the flora and the wildlife.
Given all the major problems on the source of supply, water
supply, from Stukely South, due to dynamite operations during the
installation of Gaz Metropolitain's line in 1983 and particularly
given the problems that are still around, what would happen with the
underground sources that supply my three (3) current lakes and my two
(2) drinking water wells?
Now, safety concerns, according to minimal environmental
standards, there should be no residents or building inhabited or not
within a perimeter of one hundred (100) metres of a gas line.
According to the topography of my land, the buildings that we were
going to put up in 1998 will be within this security perimeter. So,
what should we do for our security?
Also, low-flying helicopters will not only disturb our peace and
quiet, but will certainly disturb our sheep.
They are going to be dynamiting all along the length of my land.
Since there is already a gas line near there, what will be the
consequences on the stability and dependability on the infrastructure
of the first gas line? What are the concrete emergency measures in
case of an accident that will be put in place, and who is going to pay
for the cost of incidents, TQM or the municipality? Nobody knows.
Mr. Saint-Laurent in Magog declared that the local frontline
stakeholders will be used without, however, delivering any concrete
emergency measures. What are these concrete emergency measures? We
still don't know. What are the real concrete and written measures for
mitigating the problems related to dynamiting? Once again, we don't
know. What are going to be the consequences on the supply of water to
my lakes following the dynamiting? Still the same answer, we don't
know.
When I asked the question to Mr. Trudelle in Magog at the first
part of the hearing, where are you going to install your machines,
because you mentioned that, in the wooded areas, you were going to
avoid using the working area when you are in a hill with two (2)
easements, one for gas and another for hydro, the answer that I
received was most difficult to understand, just like everything else.
I have included a copy of the verbatims, including Mr. Trudelle's
response.
The execution, this perhaps is the point where I have the most
fears. I would like to table and file, if you'll permit me to do so,
a letter that I sent to Mr. Urgel Delisle at TQM last week, showing
once again that you can't trust these people, and you can't trust what
they tell us. Mr. Delisle and TQM demonstrate once again they do not
respect ownership, that what they say and what they do is completely
different. Mr. Delisle in Magog was apologizing before the Commission
for the nthiem time for the same problem, saying that this isn't going
to happen again. Why don't we judge this ourselves? They keep on
telling us one thing and doing the opposite.
I would like to know what kind of guarantees I can have on the
integral application of all security maintenance measures to be taken
after the construction and regarding surveillance that is low-flying
helicopters, and monetary compensation that is fair and equitable on
the real value of my wooded lot.
And what kind of guarantee can I have on all of that, when ever
since the beginning of the project they never respected any of their
words? No authorization to penetrate on our land was asked for. Our
land was surveyed, marked, and so forth without any written or oral
authorization. So, between what is said and what is done by TQM,
there is an immense difference.
In the execution of the project of the TQM, these people affirm
to us that everything is going to be done according to their
procedures, when there is no communication before the work even
begins. We have had enough excuses. We have plenty of fears.
Nothing works the way they tell it is going to work. I have serious
questions about the future.
Now, with regard to compensation, they tell us that they pay for
everything or almost everything. It is not money that we want from
TQM. It is the quality of life that includes our peace and quiet, our
animals, our wooded lots, and certainly it includes no pipeline on our
land. Since money can't buy happiness, it certainly cannot reassure
us for our security.
Suggestions and recommendations, the main impacts that will
persist after the construction, according to what the developer has
said, will be the immense corridors that will be opened through the
wooded lands and the impossibility of installing any permanent
structures there.
Given that, between Granby and Eastman, it will be easy to use
part of private lots along Autoroute 10, why divide our land in two
(2)? Maybe it would be a good idea to revise the geographical data
and study this solution. It is normal to have major open spaces along
highways. You expect to find such corridors for autoroutes, but not
right in the middle of our wooded lots and in a recreational touristic
zone. This is a real ecological disaster.
I will ask TQM to please revise and especially to reconsider
another line, another layout, for the pipeline. A possible option
would be to use the line of the least impact, that of Montreal
Pipeline or from Montreal to Highwater. The next option would be the
Maritimes and northeast pipeline which goes through New Brunswick.
In spite of the information sessions that I have attended, I am
still waiting for clear and frank answers to all the questions that
have been brought up. To TQM, I will tell you I have enough gas on my
land, and I do not want more; no to TQM, no to the destruction of the
wooded areas in the Eastern Townships, thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Thank you, if I understand, you don't want the pipeline.
MRS. DENISE SAVAGE:
Absolutely not.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Well, I want to make sure with you that the questions that you
have asked, that you are referring to in the end of your brief, that
you get answers, perhaps not the satisfactory answer that you like,
but at least answers. So, I would like to find out were there
questions that you asked that you did not get an answer to, and I will
make sure that you get an answer to those questions. I cannot
guarantee that you will like the answers, but at least I can guarantee
that you will get answers to your questions.
Now, the Commission will take note of your opposition. You, I
believe, live not far from Mr. Saint-Hilaire.
MRS. DENISE SAVAGE:
I think Mr. Saint-Hilaire lives on the other side of the Highway
112.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Okay, because he talked a lot about Chemin de la Diligence. I
think I should go see it.
MRS. DENISE SAVAGE:
Yes, you should. It is a really magnificent area. He has about
the same problem as I do, because I have three (3) artificial lakes
already. So, the same problem happens. It is always a question of the
underwater source of supply.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Okay, and as a producer, you are not interested in natural gas?
MRS. DENISE SAVAGE:
Well, I would appreciate it, but you can't just plug into a line
like that. We are not served by this gas. I could use the gas for my
granges, for my sheep barn, and for my house, but nobody talked to us
about that. There is just Mr. Guay who came in with a questionnaire.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Paré.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:
Mme. Savage, you talk about two (2) easements on your land: one
which is Hydro Quebec and the other which is the existing Gaz
Metropolitain pipeline. Are these parallel or in different areas?
MRS. DENISE SAVAGE:
No, they are parallel. The TQM one would expand what already
exists.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:
Okay, so, this would be a length with three (3) easements.
MRS. DENISE SAVAGE:
Yes.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:
You alluded to some behaviours that you deplore by the
developers. However, there already is a Gaz Metropolitain pipeline.
In terms of your relationship with Gaz Metropolitain regarding the
maintenance and surveillance of the existing pipeline, has this caused
you a problem up to date?
MRS. DENISE SAVAGE:
No, with Gaz Metropolitain, they came through two (2) or three
(3) times, but they always told me ahead of time that they were coming
through, but, for maintenance, I can't say.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:
In other words, you haven't had any difficulties.
MRS. DENISE SAVAGE:
No, because I purchased in 1990. So, that was already built
before that time, but I know that my neighbours had problems, Mr.
Boisvert among others.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:
Okay, thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Mme. Savage, please don't leave yet. Mr. Cloutier has a couple
of questions.
MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner:
Yes, just one question, Mme. Savage, here you say - I'll just
read a phrase, that, according to minimal environmental standards,
there should be no building, whether inhabited or not, within a
hundred (100) metres of the gas line. What I am interested to know is
that environmental standard, minimal environmental standard, what's
that?
MRS. DENISE SAVAGE:
Well, it was during a meeting in Magog that you asked the
question from somebody at the Environment Ministry, and he said that,
that, within one hundred (100) metres of a gazoduc, there should be no
building, whether inhabited or not. And you asked that person at the
time to respond to the question what were the minimal environmental
standards.
MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner:
Okay, well, I just would like to make a rectification then here.
This was a representative of the Ministry of Public Security.
MRS. DENISE SAVAGE:
Well, anyway, it was the last guy on the end. I don't remember
his name.
MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner:
Yes, I think it was Mr. Lapalme.
MRS. DENISE SAVAGE:
That's possible.
MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner:
Okay, and then, the distance that he gave on that hundred (100)
metres there was not a standard. It was a security distance that is
an estimate, not a standard or set provision.
MRS. DENISE SAVAGE:
Oh, well, I'm sorry, I had taken it as a standard.
MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner:
Okay, I just wanted to clear that up.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Well, thank you very much, Mme. Savage, for your presentation;
we will now have a break until ten after nine (9:10).
SHORT ADJOURNMENT
THE CHAIRMAN:
So, we will get back in session with Mr. Jean-Claude Chapleau.
MR. JEAN-CLAUDE CHAPLEAU:
Good evening, Mr. President, Commissioners, ladies and
gentlemen, my concern, I'm very concerned by the proposed layout of
the TQM pipeline, because it goes through my land and divides it in
two (2). In addition, TQM takes away some of my mature wooded areas,
in which you find a cedar stand and several very large trees, and also
they are going to cut part of my five (5) year old plantation of three
thousand (3,000) spruce trees.
I'm concerned by this project, because I have three (3) lakes
with trout and five (5) which will be sourced by natural springs and
underwater tables. If I look at the problems with the municipality of
Stukely South since they went through in 1983 for the Gaz
Metropolitain pipeline, what is going to happen to my water supply?
What is going to happen to my lakes? TQM tells us they are going to
put the water back and make sure that there is a flow from the wells,
but how can they rebuild natural springs and water tables after
dynamiting the land?
My opinion on the entire project, well, since the beginning,
they haven't been frank with us, and it leaves us a bitter taste and a
real fear for our security. We are sure that they are hiding
something, and that once we sign on the dotted line for TQM, that we
will then only know the truth on all the negative impacts of the
project, when it is too late.
From one meeting to the next, we were discovering new negative
impacts of the project not from the developer, but from concerned
citizens who took the time and trouble to do the necessary research
and to ask the necessary questions to the people responsible for the
project. We have never had clear and precise answers. How can we
trust TQM?
So, my concerns are as follows. We are visually destroying a
very touristic region. We are destroying mature woodlands. We are
destroying wildlife habitat. We are destroying the estrian flora. We
are interrupting people's peace and quiet. We are devaluating private
property. We are disturbing domesticated and other animals. We are
cutting into natural springs and underwater tables. All of this only
for what? For money, for a pipeline.
What about common sense? What about a quality of life in
Estrie? What about human beings? What about the safety of people and
animals? What about animals, trees, and plants? What about nature?
All of these questions are still without an answer.
My comments are that we feel like David standing in front of
Goliath. We do not have the monetary resources, the experience, the
time nor the expertise that TQM has, but we have common sense. It
says no to a third easement, which creates an immense corridor in the
middle of the forest; no to the non-respect of our rights and
especially to non-respect to property, and no to TQM. Go back to the
drawing board, TQM. There are other possible layouts with less
impact.
My suggestions and recommendations, I suggest TQM go back to the
drawing board and reconsider a less impactful layout, which would go
around wooded areas. I recommend the Commission to take into
consideration the idea that you could use private lots along
autoroutes. What difference would there be to use cultivated land
along autoroutes, which is open space, or cut through trees twenty-
three (23) metres further down the way? We expect to see spaces near
highways, but not through the forest.
I recommend that we think of using the Maritimes and northeast
layout which goes through New Brunswick, and which would avoid
negative impacts for the Eastern Townships. I recommend to use
another alternative, the first project, which was from Montreal to
Highwater.
Ladies and gentlemen, please, think of the ecological
disturbance that such a pipeline would have for the Eastern Townships,
and please change your plans.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Chapleau, if I understand, you are completely
opposed to the project.
MR. JEAN-CLAUDE CHAPLEAU:
Yes, I am.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Could you please comment on the reasons why you say that they
weren't frank with you, and that you are sure that they are hiding
something?
MR. JEAN-CLAUDE CHAPLEAU:
Well, it is easy, because each time we went to meetings and we
asked questions, we never got the right answer. For example, Mr.
Delisle, I think that he was the first of the developers. You ask him
a question. He doesn't answer.
Then, he says, oh, we always have to ask for permission to get
on your land. Then, last week, I had two (2) people walking on my land
and that I put out. They said that they had called, and that they had
had telephone authorization to come on my land. I am sorry. Nobody
called me, nobody at all. And then, another one, Mr. Delisle, was
full of apologies, bowing to everyone, saying, oh, I'm sorry, but this
will never happen again. Well, how can you trust a company like that?
For the time being, everything is nice and everything is rosy,
but when you go to have authorizations to do anything whatsoever, are
they going to leave our land the way they found it? Are they going to
observe the contracts that we signed with them, or are we going to
have to look for them after and try to get them to adhere to their
commitments? My answer is that they won't adhere to their
commitments.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Okay, you have some water in underwater tables that concern you.
Do you have any objective reasons to fear that dynamiting in your
sector will affect the subterranean tables?
MR. JEAN-CLAUDE CHAPLEAU:
Yes, I looked at the village of Stukely South when the
Metropolitain went through, and they dynamited there. And there
wasn't enough water left to even supply the village. So, just as you
said, it is the same line. It is the same route. So, I'm really
worried.
Look at Mr. Saint-Hilaire, who spoke earlier. He says that his
lake dried up since they went through the Gaz Metropolitain pipeline.
What's going to happen with mine? What's going to happen to my ten
thousand (10,000) trout? This is what I'm worried about. Are they
going to ensure my water flow? If they break the underwater table,
I'm finished.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Okay, Mr. Paré.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:
Yes, you talked about an alternative to use the Maritime
northeast line. Now, for you, does this mean that the disadvantages
of this project are superior to the economic advantages for Quebec?
MR. JEAN-CLAUDE CHAPLEAU:
Well, if you talk about Quebec, if you talk about economic
advantages for the country, first of all, this gas is going to the
United States, first of all. So, it gives me nothing.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:
Yes, but the price of the gas is going to be paid to Canadians.
MR. JEAN-CLAUDE CHAPLEAU:
Well, I was never offered shares in a company for that.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:
Yes, but it is going to be in taxes.
MR. JEAN-CLAUDE CHAPLEAU:
Oh, yes, right, you still lower the value of my property,
because when you have this wide servitude on my property, let me tell
you one thing. The two hundred and fifty (250) feet wide, a quarter
of a mile long, a third easement on my land, it is a big impact.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:
Okay, my question is: Does this project not have economic fall-
out for Quebec?
MR. JEAN-CLAUDE CHAPLEAU:
Well, it is of no interest to me and no advantage to me. They
can go from New Brunswick to the States, to the Portland, and that's
the same for me. It won't bother me at all.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:
Okay, elsewhere, you say there is another outlay that you can
consider. Why do you like this one?
MR. JEAN-CLAUDE CHAPLEAU:
Well, because it doesn't go through our land. It doesn't go
through my land.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Okay, thank you, Mr. Chapleau, we take note of your opposition
and your motives. Now, I would like to call Mr. Jean-Sébastien
Chapleau.
MR. JEAN-SÉBASTIEN CHAPLEAU:
Good evening, Mr. President and Commissioners, my name is Jean-
Sébastien Chapleau. I'm twenty (20) years old, and I'm part of the
next generation. I will be soon finishing a course in operating
bovine corporations in the spring of 1998. And then, I will start my
sheep-raising company after that. My future is the land, the land of
my parents.
Right now, TQM is going to cut three thousand (3,000) trees in
five (5) years in our plantation and a very large quantity of the
mature trees in our wooded land. The trees are my salary for the
future. My parents have taught me the respect for others and the
property, but it seems that TQM didn't learn that from anyone. They
want to impose something dangerous for ourselves and our animals,
something that will devalue our property, and especially which will
tear down a forest land that is so important for the Eastern Townships
region.
Maybe I'm young, but I'm very aware that all the trees that you
are going to cut on our land, I will never be old enough to see them
grow back. Several trees are easily twenty (20) and thirty (30)
inches and more in diameter. So, I'm talking for us. The negative
impacts are the same for all of the Eastern Township region.
What's going to happen to my sheep when the helicopters are
going to be low-flying? And what is going to happen when the
snowmobiles are going to come through and break down the fences?
Because thirty (30) metres of unwooded land near two (2) easements
will open a big highway right through the woods. This is unacceptable
for the environment.
What's going to happen to my water supply for my sheep once they
finish dynamiting? The water tables, will they still be there?
Nobody can guarantee that. My buildings will be relatively close to
the pipeline because of the configuration of our land. What's going to
happen to our security with a problem caused by the pipeline? Nobody
knows.
Even if I have not participated actively in the TQM meetings and
the BAPE meetings, I did want to come in and give my opinion. I
disagree with the current layout for the TQM pipeline. Please study
and look at the other solutions that could have less impact on our
region. Stop the forest destruction of such a magnificent region. I
am sure you will find a better solution, something more logical and
less destructive for the beautiful region of the Eastern Townships.
Please, Mr. President and Commissioners, see to the future, thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Chapleau, you say that they want to impose
something that is dangerous for you and your animals. What do you
mean by dangerous?
MR. JEAN-SÉBASTIEN CHAPLEAU:
Well, I mean that, with the pipeline that is going to go
through, myself and my animals are going to have to eat somewhere.
And so, if there is ever a leak or anything like that, I don't feel
safe.
THE CHAIRMAN:
So, do you think that there is a danger of leakage?
MR. JEAN-SÉBASTIEN CHAPLEAU:
Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Okay, concerning low-flying helicopters, if there is some
guarantee regarding altitude and those are respected, would this
reassure you?
MR. JEAN-SÉBASTIEN CHAPLEAU:
Well, not really, because still the animals are very nervous,
and even if they stay at a higher altitude, I think that the animals
are very nervous, and it is more difficult to control that, and it can
have effects on the animals as such.
THE CHAIRMAN:
And you, as a sheep farmer, is natural gas of interest to you?
Is it a resource you could use some day?
MR. JEAN-SÉBASTIEN CHAPLEAU:
Yes, possibly.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Okay, Mr. Cloutier.
MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner:
On point number 4, you talked about your future buildings for
1998. You say that they are going to be relatively close to the
pipeline because of the configuration of your land. Is it possible
for you to tell us in terms of distance in metres or feet what you
mean by relatively close?
MR. JEAN-SÉBASTIEN CHAPLEAU:
Well, less than a hundred and fifteen (115) metres, a lot less.
MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner:
And these would be buildings --
MR. JEAN-SÉBASTIEN CHAPLEAU:
Well, it is a sheep barn.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Okay, Mr. Paré.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:
I'm going to ask you the question. Right now, you live near two
(2) servitudes, rights of way. What sort of inconveniences do you
face right now due to the presence of the Hydro Quebec and Gaz
Metropolitain servitudes?
MR. JEAN-SÉBASTIEN CHAPLEAU:
Well, first of all, there are ski-doos that go through our land
in the winter. Right now, there are two (2) fences. Eventually, I'm
going to have to build up another fence for grazing. I imagine that
those will go through with their ski-doos. If they are able to do so,
they will go through my grazing land.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:
Have they done so in the past?
MR. JEAN-SÉBASTIEN CHAPLEAU:
Yes, they do so all the time, go through the fences. I mean we
have to redo the fences all the time.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:
What are you doing to prevent this?
MR. JEAN-SÉBASTIEN CHAPLEAU:
Well, we keep blocking the fence.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:
Okay, thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chapleau; Mr. Lucien Riendeau.
MR. LUCIEN RIENDEAU:
Good evening, Mr. Chair, Mr. Commissioners, further to the
project for the gas line of TQM, here are a few facts. Among the
people who have signed the petition that the gas line has to be
changed, so that it can go around towards the periphery of farmlands,
the major inconveniences are as follows: noise and shading.
According to a study done, I think it is attached. I don't know
if you have it. It was done by German vets. Noise has a direct
impact on cattle. There is a factor of stress, which could lead to
early calving or premature calving. It affects the HRV system.
The three (3) producers are Arthur Riendeau, Alain Trottier,
Lucien Riendeau, myself, cattle producers. We are dairy producers,
and we expect to get a significant compensation from Trans Quebec
Maritimes, because each time that the helicopter goes over our lands,
our cows will - they go nuts for a period of thirty (30) to a hundred
and twenty (120) minutes. As a result, the producer will have to
leave the rings within the buildings, and that would result in much
more significant costs to feed the animals. So, it is in your
interest to get the pipeline going toward the periphery of the lands
for the welfare of the animals.
This is signed Arthur Riendeau, Alain Robert, and Lucien
Riendeau.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Thank you very much, Mr. Riendeau, the Commission will examine
the data you have presented. We will examine what you have just said
and the studies you have submitted for our examination; Mr. Cloutier.
MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner:
The references you have given us are quite interesting. There
are different methods that could be used to reduce the impact of noise
on animals. This could involve the time of year or when the
helicopter or the airplane flies over the land, and it could also
involve the height of the flight. Now, based on scientific studies,
if specifications with respect to the time of flight and the height,
if those studies showed that the impact would be minimal, would you be
prepared to see flights over your farms?
MR. LUCIEN RIENDEAU:
Well, for the time being, I have experience with Hydro Quebec,
and I have got problems. So, that's why I am afraid. I've got some
really bad experiences with Hydro Quebec.
MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner:
So, have you incurred any losses already?
MR. LUCIEN RIENDEAU:
Yes.
MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner:
Were these losses compensated? Were you compensated by Hydro
Quebec for these losses?
MR. LUCIEN RIENDEAU:
No.
MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner:
Why? Did Hydro Quebec recognize or deny this deed?
MR. LUCIEN RIENDEAU:
Well, I tried to do something, but to no avail. It is through
the maintenance of the Hydro Quebec line that we have had problems.
They have gone through with a four-wheel vehicle. They opened the
fence and left it open. The animals, it took a week before the
animals saw the hole. Now, once they saw the hole, within a week,
they were all out of there, and there is a vehicle that struck fifteen
(15) of them. Four (4) died. The vehicle was scrapped, and the guy
was injured.
I contacted Hydro Quebec to find out when they passed through my
land, and they said they did it seven (7) days ago, but at the end of
seven (7) days, I reported it to the insurance company, and the
insurance company responded, but I don't know. Maybe it hasn't been
solved yet, but it has been two (2) years since this happened.
MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner:
I understand. Earlier on, I was talking about noise and impacts
that you have had with your grazing, but what you are talking about is
more with respect to the management or the maintenance of the
corridor.
MR. LUCIEN RIENDEAU:
Well, as for the noise, I have had some experiences on that,
too, with animals jumping over the fence as a result of the noise from
helicopters.
MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner:
Have you had any loss of animals?
MR. LUCIEN RIENDEAU:
No, not caused by noise, but I have had some segments of my
building torn.
MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner:
How about the three (3) others?
MR. LUCIEN RIENDEAU:
Well, the three others, it is the same thing.
MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner:
In other words, there haven't been any deaths. There have just
been some injuries, if you like, to the animals.
MR. LUCIEN RIENDEAU:
Yes.
MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner:
Okay, thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Now, you talked about shading as well, in addition to the noise.
MR. LUCIEN RIENDEAU:
Yes, when the cows are lying down and they see the shading
coming down, that frightens them.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Now, if there is no noise and just a shadow, for example, if we
are talking about delta planing, that doesn't make any noise. Would
they still have a problem?
MR. LUCIEN RIENDEAU:
Yes, they would still have a problem with the shading or the
shadows that they see.
THE CHAIRMAN:
So, if the flight is at a certain height, and if you can solve
the problem of the shadowing, that problem would be solved. The noise
is something else; Mr. Cloutier.
MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner:
Just a supplemental question, now, among the measures used to
minimize the noise and the impact on animals, there is also, for
example, the possibility of painting the roof of your farmhouse, so
that the pilot can avoid flying over certain areas. This type of
measure, is this something that could allay some of your fears?
MR. LUCIEN RIENDEAU:
The farmhouse is about five (5) acres away. That's a bit hard.
It is only when the animals are lying in the grazing area.
MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner:
Okay, thank you very much.
THE CHAIRMAN: