Top
BAPE Verbatims Index / Pipeline Blues Index
THE CHAIRMAN:
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the second part of the public hearings on the extension of the TQM gas line, from Likeness to East Hereford. My name is Camille Genest, I'm a Commissioner of the BAPE. I'm assisted by Mr. Charles Cloutier and Mr. Jean Paré, members of the bureau.
The other members of the team are Madame Solanges Hudon, analyst, and Mylène Savard and France Carter, secretaries of The Commission. Stenotypist, Lise Maisonneuve for French, Phyllis Markoff for the English version.
The interpretation services are provided by Mr. Francis Évandé. the technical are assured by the Ministry of Relations with Immigrants, headed by Jean Metivier and Daniel Moisan.
The second part of the BAPE consultation process is devoted to the hearing of briefs by the commission. Presentation of your briefs can be done verbally, or tabling it and providing explanations.
Any person, municipality or group can take a position on the project or on any item that is part of the file being examined. Participants are asked to present their briefs based on an order agreed beforehand with Mrs. Carter.
All the documents regarding the second portion would be available in consultation centres, as well as transcripts, as soon as possible. The consultation centres are The Coaticook Library, The Memphramagog Library. The Municipal Library in Ste-Julie, The Municipal Library in Granby, The Roussin Community Centre, and the two offices of the BAPE, in Quebec City and Montreal, and The Library of University of Quebec, in Montreal.
The documents are also available at the back of the room with the secretaries of The Commission. Just a reminder of the procedure of the environmental assessment and the role of the BAPE. The first part of the hearings were participants who wanted to... were able to ask questions to The Commission, which then transferred them to, or relayed them to the developer of the project and other resource persons. Several questions were asked after the first hearings, and the answers are now available at the consultation centres.
This evening we're starting the second part of the hearings -- well, the second -here we're starting the Coaticook session, and the second part is devoted to opinions and briefs, after which The Commission will analyze them and integrate it into its own analysis of the project. Analysis and recommendations of The Commission would be included in a report that would be handed over to the Minister of Environmental Wildlife, on October 9, 1997.
The Minister, according to the regulatory requirements, has sixty days to make it public. Now, with respect to the schedule for the hearings, it's as follows for the next few sessions: This evening and tomorrow here in Coaticook, the 6th and 7th of August at the Salle Paroissiale, Centre St-Jean-Bosco, 900 Sherbrooke Street in Magog.
Finally, before calling on the first participant, I would like to remind you what the rules are for the second part of the hearings. Once people have made their presentation, the commission would ask questions to try to get a better handle on all their concerns and arguments, and, if necessary obtain additional information.
In addition, there is a right of rectification to correct facts or erroneous data stated during the session. This right is available to everyone, and it could be exercised at the end of each session. Those who wish to exercise this right should advise Madame France Carter or Mylène Savard at the back of the room. At the end of the session there will be a period set aside for rectification of facts and/or data if necessary.
Right of rectification applies only to facts, and does not apply to opinions issued, so the right of rectification is only valid to correct facts or data that were inaccurate presented during the session.
Finally, I'd like to remind you that The Commission wants to
work in a calm environment, and any offensive or disrespectful
language or conduct is not appropriate for this kind of session. On
behalf of my colleagues I wish you all the best for these hearings.
I'd like to call upon the municipality of East Hereford to make
their representation.
MR. RICHARD BELLEVILLE:
Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Commissioners, my name is
Richard Belleville, Mayor of East Hereford. As part of the hearings
that are being held right now, the municipal counsel wishes to make a
clarification with respect to the possible presence of TQM on its
territory.
TQM is a company that wants to open new markets and that would
allow several sectors of economic activity to benefit. In this regard
we can only congratulate the company, and we are happy to welcome this
company as a tax payer. We hope that the spin-offs will be beneficial
for our local companies and for our independent workers.
Public safety after the construction continues to be a problem,
a concern, but we appreciate TQM's open mindedness in this regard, and
we are ready to discuss, as we mentioned before. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Mayor, that's the end of your presentation?
MAYOR RICHARD BELLEVILLE:
Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Now, this presentation accompanies a brief that had already been
filed by the municipality?
MAYOR RICHARD BELLEVILLE:
Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN:
What about this clarification? It's just an addition, it doesn't
amend your brief.
MAYOR RICHARD BELLEVILLE:
Well, the points that we outlined in our brief, well, we do not
want those points to hinder the project. It is just a clarification
we wanted to put forth.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Hence we can say that the municipality of East Hereford
supports the project and agrees with the project.
MAYOR RICHARD BELLEVILLE:
That's exactly the point.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Now, what are your concerns? On security, you said? Safety?
MAYOR RICHARD BELLEVILLE:
Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Do you have any more indications or details on that? What
exactly are you afraid of?
MAYOR RICHARD BELLEVILLE:
I cannot say that we're afraid - well, it's just for the further
we would like TQM to sit down with us, to discuss. I'm sure we can
come to some kind of an agreement with them.
THE CHAIRMAN:
As a municipality have you analyzed this issue? Do you have
your own ways of examining things, for example, minimum distances,
emergency measures, codes used, construction codes, post construction
codes, follow-up and so on; have you done that?
MAYOR RICHARD BELLEVILLE:
As our brief says, we've already... we already have a group
that is working on safety, and all we would like is for TQM to sit
down with them to finalize the whole thing.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Have you already had any meetings?
MAYOR RICHARD BELLEVILLE:
No, not at all.
THE CHAIRMAN:
But you're opening your arms to them and you hope that they will
make an appointment with you.
MAYOR RICHARD BELLEVILLE:
That's it.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Thank you very much.
Mr. Paré.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):
Mr. Mayor, I'd like you to tell us a little bit more about this
group that's working on safety. Is it something that was recently
created following the news about the gas line, or is it a group that
has been around for a long time; what's its mandate?
MAYOR RICHARD BELLEVILLE:
Well, as you know, the government is forced to have safety
groups in case of disaster, and they're going to have to work with
that group because now it is compulsory; it's been made compulsory by
the government.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):
Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Cloutier.
MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):
Apart from the safety committee that you mentioned in your
brief, you also say that the participation of your municipal civil
servants - well, that they should also participate in the
construction. Now, is this collaboration still a concern of yours?
MAYOR RICHARD BELLEVILLE:
Well, from my calculations, at least that person should be
advised of the way things would work. I'm sure TQM would collaborate
with them because it is the civil servant, municipal civil servant,
who issues permits one way or another.
MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):
When you say advise, what do you mean by advise? Do you expect
TQM to advise or inform the municipality of the work that was going
on?
MAYOR RICHARD BELLEVILLE:
Yes.
MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):
Now, with respect to the safety group that you just mentioned.
Can you tell us - give us an idea of its composition? Are these
people volunteers who meet from time to time. Does your municipality
feel well equipped, in terms of resources, financing, in terms of the
way this group operates?
MAYOR RICHARD BELLEVILLE:
Well, this group was set up only on January 1, 1997, it has not
yet been finalized. We should be finalizing this group at the end of
September. It is a group of volunteers who work with a few resource
persons. They, too, are volunteers of the municipality.
MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):
Now, do you have any idea as to the role that the safety group
should play in the overall emergency plan of a gas line for your
municipality?
MAYOR RICHARD BELLEVILLE:
Not for the time being.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Paré.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):
Mr. Mayor, I'd like to raise other issues that you raise in your
brief with you. On two occasions you say you would like to look at
the line together with the developer, so that it can either be
modified to minimize its impact or identify a line that respects your
environment. Those are things that you say in your brief.
Now, so far have you had any meetings with the developer, or
have there been my modifications to the line that has been studied in
cooperation with the developer?
MAYOR RICHARD BELLEVILLE:
Well, there are have been some modifications with the citizens,
modifications of the line, and what we wrote in the brief is that we
would have liked to sit down with them. We've discussed it, and we
feel that the owners can also do it.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):
What you deplore is that it should be done individually, with
each owner, instead of being done with the municipality?
MAYOR RICHARD BELLEVILLE:
Yes.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):
Has the municipality had to meet the developer, would you
already have proposals for modification to submit?
MAYOR RICHARD BELLEVILLE:
No.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):
At another point you say that you would wish that the building
inspector to be supported by a consulting firm before issuing the
permits. Does your municipality intend to hire the services of a
consulting firm, so that the inspector doesn't work alone?
MAYOR RICHARD BELLEVILLE:
Well, this is something that we would like, but we still have to
discuss it TQM.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):
Why? Why would you want to discuss with TQM?
MAYOR RICHARD BELLEVILLE:
Well, because we feel that they want to work with us rather than
against us.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):
But if you had the services of a consulting firm, an independent
consulting firm, that means that you'd be prepared to pay that firm
yourself?
MAYOR RICHARD BELLEVILLE:
Well, in collaboration with TQM.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):
Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Mayor, thank you very much for your presentation. If you
set up an appointment with TQM, The Commission would appreciate being
informed, and, if necessary, be informed about the details of your
discussion with the developer. Thank you very much.
I'd like to call Mrs. Lucie Roy-Alain for Jean-Paul Roy. Good
evening, Mrs. Alain.
MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:
Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, Mr. Commissioners, I
found out this morning that I was to replace Mr. Roy. I wish to
apologize on his behalf because he could not attend, and I'd like you
to tell me how it works here, because I'm in hot water here.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Well, you'll have time to express your opinion, and if you wish
to read the document that we have already received, you're free to do
so, whether to comment on it or present it in your own way, and then
we'll ask you some questions in exchange.
MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:
He told me that I could make any comment I wish to, any comment
relevant so that the pipeline wouldn't go through East Hereford. Now,
I am going to read his letter.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Commissioners, I own a hundred and seventy-six
acres of land in the municipality of East Hereford, and I reside in
the municipality of St-Malo. The links between these two
municipalities are very close because we share schools and we
cooperate in the field of tourism, and I can add on my own, that we
have the bike trail that will go from East Hereford to St-Malo and
vice-versa, and St-Malo is a participant in the contest of Flowered
Towns and Villages of Quebec, and that municipality is beautiful and
they are getting ahead.
And another comment, both municipalities belong to the Coaticook MRCs,
and this is why the Quebec Maritime and TQM project is of interest to
me and I wished my opinion to be known. After attending an
information session, and after reading various documents on this
topic, I find it totally unthinkable that this type of project would
break the beautiful harmony which exists in this municipality.
This is totally farming area, with great tourist development
possibilities. The village and the area are beautiful and can lead to
trails for walking, skidoos and bicycles, et cetera, and, if I may, I
would like to add that he had a project for his own piece of the
mountain - and I'll keep on reading, so given that the TQM pipeline
project from Likeness to East Hereford will go through the foot of
these mountains, it would have a very negative impact on our
environment, concerning the environment, tourism, and human life,
drinking water, and I therefore strongly oppose to that project, like
the majority of people here in this area.
I refuse to suffer the hazard, noise and smell that such a
project would bring here, and why should we accept to see our
environment destroyed while the people in Vermont totally refuse to
accept this poisoned gift. Is it logical for us to let our
environment be invaded and destroy the Eastern Townships for this
pipeline that will be enjoyed by the Americans?
If we think about the various deplorable incidents that
occurred during the past ten years we would have to be blind to accept
this pipeline project, so that we would avoid, therefore, destroying
our tourism and economic development, and this environment would
become a place where nobody wants to come.
Therefore I support all the steps taken to oppose this project.
Why not follow the existing line between Montreal and Boston, and I
hope, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Commissioners, that you will take into
consideration these simple remarks, but sincere remarks, and it is
signed Jean-Paul Roy, and you have his address and telephone number if
you have other questions to put to him.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Do you have any further comments?
MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:
No, I don't think so. If you have questions I will answer it
to the extent that I can.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Roy is mentioning a project which will make the beautiful
harmony which exists in this beautiful municipality; what does he mean
there; does he mean harmony between the people, the harmony in
landscape or visual aesthetic harmony that he's referring to?
MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:
Well, Mr. Roy, I think, is seventy-one years old. He's always
lived in nature and from the forest, and for him harmony and landscape
is very important, and he would not accept any hole in the landscape
which would rupture the harmony in that landscape. Of course, there's
also harmony between the people because some people are for and others
are against.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Yes, and we've heard Mr. Mayor earlier that it's not the whole
community that is for or against, it's divided, apparently. Mr. Roy
was mentioning also that this is a beautiful area and village. He's
referring to mountains and the tourism potential here, and refers to
biking trails, ski trails and skidoo trails.
Do you feel this type of tourism would not be compatible with
the pipeline, because we see that in Magog, along the existing
pipeline, there is a bike trail and a trail for mobile use. Do you
think this type of infrastructure is incompatible with trails, either
for bicycling or skiing purposes?
MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:
Well, it is incompatible to the extent that right now there are
cycling trails, bike trails, of course. We have the...
THE CHAIRMAN:
You're talking about a mountain bike?
MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:
No, that's because in East Hereford there is the mountain bike,
and we have three types of biking.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Could you tell us about these various types of biking?
MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:
Well, a mountain bike is mostly for those who want to have
problems and who like to go through obstacles.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Yes, but you have trails for these three types of bicycles?
You're talking about mountain, country biking and flower biking?
MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:
Well, in East Hereford there are more hills, it's a more hilly
area, and the country trail connects East Hereford and St-Venant, and
because our village has been selected as a winner in the flower
contest, so it's mostly for biking for people who love flowers, and
they want to use their bicycle on the highway or road.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Whether you like flowers, countryside or mountain, if there is a
pipeline underground, do you think this would be incompatible with the
linear use or utilization of this territory, and the only visual
difference would be the yellow markers that you can identify from far
away? They can even look like yellow flowers.
MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:
Well, I thought it had more of an orange colour from what we saw
on television, because what TQM is proposing for location, the line
doesn't necessarily mean that there will be bike trails or trails all
along. This line will cross some farms, and when there's a break in
the landscape, this is when this is incompatible.
THE CHAIRMAN:
I'm just trying to understand, this is why I'm asking
questions, I'm not intending to create problems. There are, I think,
in your village some trails, do you think that the pipeline would
reduce the number of participants in these races or bicycle trailing?
MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:
You know that bikers are normally nature lovers, and convinced that
they are quite happy with East Hereford right now, and I'm convinced
that they won't find our landscape as beautiful in the future, should
there be a pipeline.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Roy is referring to hazards of noise and smell. I
understand the word hazards or risk. It's the general perception in
the public that a pipeline may be hazardous or dangerous; whether it
is true or not, this is understandable as a feeling, but what do you
mean by noise and smell?
MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:
Well, I didn't ask him about noise. Probably he means the
compression station, and the smell, as well. Mercaptan - he's
probably referring to mercaptan. I think this is what he read about,
because at one point he said - I don't know where, but in the
following paragraph, "given the deplorable incidents that occurred
during the past ten years, and after attending a meeting and reading
on this topic" - this is in the second paragraph - I know that he saw
something on the Internet, on the Web, and he also refers to the
deplorable incidents which occurred over the past ten years, so this
is probably to the practically nine hundred accidents which occurred
in the U.S. between 1986 and 1996. He's probably referring to that.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Thank you, Mrs. Roy-Alain for your testimony.
MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:
Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:
We had the Coaticook MRC that was supposed to be heard tonight,
and they cancelled, and then we will now hear Mr. Laurien Alain. Mr.
Alain.
MR. LAURIEN ALAIN:
Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Commissioners, my name is
Laurien Alain. I lived in East Hereford for forty-seven years, where
I raised my family. The TQM gas line project is of no interest to me
because I don't see any advantage in it. I am concerned first with my
safety and also with my house, because my house is located about one
hundred twenty-five yards from where the gas line would pass
permanently. This means that I am in a zone that is considered
dangerous, and I couldn't sleep in peace.
I'm also thinking about when it comes time for me to sell my
house, that I'll be selling my house at a loss. I don't feel like
being forced to smell rotten eggs either. In addition, on Gaston
Beloin's lot I have a drinking water source of B6R3; I have a drinking
water source of excellent quality.
The gas line will pass about twenty to twenty-five yards under
my water source. If while digging, the shovel rattles the rocks, that
could change the veins, veins of the waterway, and the water would
change the spring.
My family has drank this water for forty-two years and we've
never been ill. We have... this is fresh water, and we've never had to
add any sulphur, nor anything whatsoever. This water is important for
those would drink it, who use it to cook and to water their plants.
Laundry can be done without the addition of expensive products. It
does not stain electrical appliances or dishes or clothes.
I want to keep this water and all its qualities, it's an
invaluable wealth. I don't want to pay any price or I don't want to be
forced to have to install an artesian well to meet my water needs. I
wouldn't have any rusty water or sulphur laden water. If I would lose
my water or its qualities the company will pay for my house, and I
would get the hell out of East Hereford.
Is it logical to have a gas line go through East Hereford and
its surrounding municipalities to provide gas for the United States?
Why look for trouble and be forced to set up an emergency plan which
would have to be updated indefinitely.
Why not think about the future generation? Is this a good gift
to bequeath to them? Why do we risk having problems with vandalism
because the customs would be open sixteen hours a day? Undesirables
will take advantage to get away, and we will be stuck with additional
problems.
We would be paying if the Americans come and cause damage here,
as we had in the past, and for several years before. We've had a lot
of problems with that every weekend. There were all kinds for problems
every weekend.
People from Vermont don't want the gas line to go through their
place because of their wetland; if it's not good for their wetland,
why would it be good for ours? We too have got wetlands and the gas
is for them, and we would be stupid to accept it.
They say they have wet land, I think we have wet land too. At
the hearings the TQM representatives often repeated the statements
such as, 'if there's any proof that we are responsible for accidents,
we will pay.' If anything happens why would we be forced probably to
pay to defend ourselves. It's not always us asking them to go through
our place, why would we be responsible for anything whatsoever.
Do you think it makes sense to install a gas line in a small
municipality of three hundred and twenty-five people, which is far
from ambulances, hospitals and police. The municipalities, citizens
and volunteers already have trouble dealing with all what they have to
do right now, why would they impose any additional burden on us.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Commissioners, I'm asking you to get this gas
line to pass next to the right-of-way of the Montreal pipeline.
There's a limit to siding with Americans and trying to take advantage
of Quebecers. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Alain, thank you very much. Your residence is a hundred
twenty-five yards?
MR. LAURIEN ALAIN:
Yes, from where the gas line is going to go through; about four
hundred feet.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Now, you feel that you are in a dangerous area, because you
said, in the first part, that the developer explained that a buried
pipeline, like the one that they're talking about, that they're
proposing, did not pose any dangers.
MR. LAURIEN ALAIN:
Well, there's no risk until there's a leak somewhere or until it
explodes somewhere; there's no danger until that happens.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Now, when you talk about the smell of rotten eggs, are you
talking about the smell because you'll be close to a compression
station, or are you talking about a gas line itself?
MR. LAURIEN ALAIN:
No, the compression station. From what I have seen on their
chart, they're going to be a kilometer from my house. There's going
to a measurement station, or weighing station, but I don't know if
it's going to change anything, but anyway it will be a kilometer from
my house.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Now, considering your drinking water source, I understand that's
important for you, that you want this invaluable wealth to be
maintained in all its qualities. Now, did the developer give you any
guarantees or assurances, or the necessary assurances?
MR. LAURIEN ALAIN:
I've never spoken to the developer in any way whatsoever. The
only time I did so was at the East Hereford hearings, and I talked to
them a little bit then, and the only thing they told me is that things
will remain as is, but I don't know. When digging - I don't know if
they're going to go ten feet at the foot of the mountain or next to
it.
If it goes around there, there's large rocks there and they may
wind up at my water source. Now, if they change my spring, if I lose
my water, where am I going to get water for my house?
THE CHAIRMAN:
So you have some doubts about the methods that will be used?
MR. LAURIEN ALAIN:
Well, it would depend on where, if it goes a hundred yards
further down it's not going to affect it, but it can't do that because
there's a house a hundred yards away; there's a big farm and a big
farm house there.
THE CHAIRMAN:
You talk about the risks of vandalism on the part of the
Americans, could you explain what you mean by this? What phenomenon
is this, how does this happen? Would it be due to the fact that there
is a corridor created by the gas line?
MR. LAURIEN ALAIN:
Not necessarily the gas like, but for several years, three or
four years, the young Americans, on the weekends, came to East
Hereford - there's a hotel at East Hereford -they came over, they
caused trouble. The owner of the hotel left the village because they
kept destroying it.
They came with 4x4s, and they were going round and round, and
there was sort of a house, there was a well, and they had a pump,
there was a pump and water, they would attach that to a 4x4, turned it
over, and they did everything to destroy the place.
I mean, there was a time when every weekend somebody came there,
spent part of the night there until the hotel was closed and the
Americans had gone, to get rid of them.
And the police - I mean, we had all kinds of problems with that
with the police, the provincial police. Go check with them, there's
all kinds of reports on that, and if they close the customs, well,
these were things that could start all over again, particularly with
the metering station that will be right there, and the pipes would be
coming out of the ground, and that could be dangerous.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Do you think that the presence of a gas line would increase this
phenomenon?
MR. LAURIEN ALAIN:
Perhaps not for the young people, but anyone who - well, since
it's close to the border, I mean, vandalism could be done anywhere,
and the metering station would be a spot for that.
THE CHAIRMAN:
You're saying that a metering station would be tempting for
vandals?
MR. LAURIEN ALAIN:
Yes, because it comes out of the ground.
THE CHAIRMAN:
You also say that you're afraid for those who are going to
replace you, i. e. the future generation.
MR. LAURIEN ALAIN:
Yes, people who will be taking over from us for these houses. I
mean, the gas line - well, how long are these pipes guaranteed for? I
mean, when they start getting old what's going to happen? What's the
guarantee on these? Twenty years, twenty-five?
THE CHAIRMAN:
Well, that information, I believe, was provided at the first
part of the hearings?
MR. LAURIEN ALAIN:
Well, how would they be maintained afterwards? Are they going
to change it, or what?
THE CHAIRMAN:
There's some information on that, too. You say that the
municipality already has trouble dealing with all the its got, with
the volunteers, and in terms of the police, and so on, but you heard
the mayor say, a minute ago, that he was in favour of the project.
We should understand, then, that the municipality, which
represents the citizens is for the project, so your argument, with
respect to the municipal services, in your view, do you think that
argument still holds, because your municipal representative himself
said there's no problem.
MR. LAURIEN ALAIN:
Well, if I understood him correctly, he said that it hadn't
been finalized yet.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Well, the discussions hadn't taken place yet, that's true. He
said they only started up in January, and since we are very far from
the centre, from the police, and everything, that's what I mean.
THE CHAIRMAN:
So you're concerned about the emergency measures.
MR. LAURIEN ALAIN:
Yes, certainly, because we had our problems with the Americans,
the police came so many times; we called them and they came three,
four hours after or the next morning.
THE CHAIRMAN:
So that's not very practical.
MR. LAURIEN ALAIN:
I know I spent some nights over at the 'relais' to watch them
myself.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Paré?
MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):
Thank you. Obviously the problem of vandalism, from what I
understand, has been around for a while, regardless of a gas line.
MR. LAURIEN ALAIN:
Yes, for several years, but over the past year or two things
have been quiet.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):
Did you asked for cooperation from the American side, from the
authorities over there, because I'm sure their people over there, too,
can be engaged in vandalism.
MR. LAURIEN ALAIN:
Well, we tried at customs to get the names of these guys, and
the U.S. police and customs never wanted to help.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):
Later in your brief, Mr. Alain, you say that the gas line is not
compatible with wetlands, and I heard you add a sentence that was not
written. You said that in your view, the metering station could
constitute an area whether it's a wetland; could you explain that
further?
MR. LAURIEN ALAIN:
Well, just before crossing to the U.S. side, there is a swamp
that's there. In fact, the farmer who was there about a year ago, his
animals would go in there and they got stuck and they were forced to
go and get them out; they got stuck in the water, and the gas line is
supposed to go through that portion.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):
So the soil there doesn't have any capacity?
MR. LAURIEN ALAIN:
Well, there is part of it, but not all of it. Things had been
worse before, now there's a steel mill that's just next to it -
there's a sawmill that's just next to it, and things were even worse
before, but you have to be careful right now, when you step into that
area.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):
Thank you very much. THE CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Alain, thank you very much for your testimony.
Madame Ghislaine Gilbert. Good evening, Madame.
MRS. GHISLAINE GILBERT::
Good evening. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Commissioners. I'm a citizen
of East Hereford. I've been a citizen of East Hereford for only eight
years. Even though it's been a short time, I have been a mayor of
this municipality for practically three years, and everyday I discover
a region where beauty, tranquility and peace can be found in an
enchanting landscape.
For a while we've been told about a project of a pipeline which
would perturb this beautiful nature. What a shock. How is it
possible, such a beautiful area, such a beautiful environment. At
first sight I had always been in favour of progress.
I was in favour of this project, but I quickly understood that
it didn't involve a small pipe like what you find in cities, but a
twenty-four inch pipeline, which would go from Lachenaie to East
Hereford, and would cause real and irrevocable damages in addition to
leaving tracks forever, and then I was no longer in agreement with
this project.
And I had been for progress before, but I understood that there
was a new connotation in this one, and when I found out that all this
was in order to serve the Americans, I couldn't believe it. In Vermont
they refused that this network would cross their wetlands, while us
Quebecers, proud of our lands and forests, are going to let multi-
national invade us, profit from our properties and land for the sole
purpose of getting richer, without paying any attention to the serious
impact which could arise from this project, which is quite useless for
us. I must say that I'm still under shock, thinking of such a
project.
If a pipeline goes through East Hereford, will it interfere with
our happiness and joy to live in this area, where the air... purity of
air, water and nature are so overwhelming. If this the case, will we
have to leave our beloved area and leave and sell the property at a
loss, if we ever find a buyer.
Will TQM pay us for the difference in case of a loss if we sell
a lot or property? Should we stay and worry about the possibilities or
leaks, accidents or explosions, when we know that we do not really
enjoy real firemen and hospital services, which would require
practically hours for us to get to. What should we choose? I prefer
the life that I have chosen rather than the one that some people want
to impose upon me.
Mr. Chairman and Mr. Commissioners, I wish that you will be
considering this project objectively, and that you'll understand that
it's not a project for people who love land, nature and the
countryside. There have been a number of other alternatives, like the
first line entering the U.S. through Highwater.
Why disturb so many people here for profiting American commerce
and trade. Thank you for your understanding.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Thank you, Mrs. Gilbert. After having spoken about the beauty,
tranquility and harmony of your village, justly so, rightly so, we
have been able to realize how beautiful a place this is.
You have said that since you were in the past not for the
project, but for the progress, that was - you said in the beginning
you were in agreement, but later on you go on to say that this project
would serve only the Americans, but the promoter gave some information
on economic progress, jobs for the Eastern Townships, Coaticook and
Eastern Montreal, don't you think that these are representative of
economic and social progress?
MRS. GHISLAINE GILBERT:
Yes, it can bring in some jobs and be interesting from the
economic standpoint, but I think that for our little area, a small
village, I don't see what this could be bring us. I don't think this
is going to create jobs in East Hereford, maybe it will have a lot
more problems than jobs.
THE CHAIRMAN:
When you're talking about perpetual traces of...
MRS. GHISLAINE GILBERT:
Yes, I'm referring to the forests, because in nonforested lands
the central pipeline doesn't leave many tracks. Actually, I'm worried
about the breakage, leakages, and so on; accidents. This is what I'm
referring to.
THE CHAIRMAN:
You're talking about the fact that you've always fought for
progress, and you're talking about your experience as a mayor for
approximately three years; can you tell us how you see this
development and how you see progress.
MRS. GHISLAINE GILBERT:
I spent approximately thirty years in Montreal, and I was there
because I was in favour of progress. I'm a teacher myself, and when I
arrived here in East Hereford I intended to change my lifestyle and
live more peacefully, and I feel that during the years that I was a
mayor I did everything for the municipality to get ahead.
Maybe it didn't always work the way I hoped, but I did my utmost
for progress to get under way, to get companies to open their doors
here, but I realize there's quite a difference between the countryside
and the city, and if I live in the countryside right now, it's because
I've chosen this lifestyle, and we cannot bring city projects here in
the country, and this is why I would like to protect this area.
For me, the way the pipe line is intended to cross East
Hereford, I don't call this progress, I think it's destruction rather
than progress. When I'm referring to progress, I'm talking about
either a new company that would create jobs here, like the fish farms
which opened a few years ago , and gave jobs to our people. In my
opinion this means progress for a small municipality.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Because you don't see any value added for your municipality or
job creation projects in connection with this pipeline.
MRS. GHISLAINE GILBERT:
Maybe, but since we're not aware of the impact, the
consequence, in five or thirty years time what will happen to this
project? How can we make sure that this is going to be probable and
good for us. I tried to organize civil security safety when I was a
mayor, and it was quite difficult. How can you get all this organized
to meet the needs?
We can't wait for something to happen, we have to be ready. Are
we ready as a municipality to do this? Unless many things have
changed over the past years, I don't think it's the right time that
this would be possible.
THE CHAIRMAN:
From what we understood, no municipality is ready to manage the
emergency response to this project. You're talking about the water,
beauty of nature, peace in this area. Do you feel that a pipeline
would change all this? There is a pipeline on the Coaticook road
leading to East Hereford, do you consider that this pipeline is
altering the air, water, the beauty of the area?
MRS. GHISLAINE GILBERT:
Well, we were told that a product is injected in the gas which
could perturb the
air.
THE CHAIRMAN:
You know, it is possible for a smell to occur, but this would
not be originating from the pipeline, but from the facilities.
MRS. GHISLAINE GILBERT:
But it is possible for this smell to spread in East Hereford,
and it might worry us, and it's the same for water. We're always
worried in case of leaks and breakage. Like Mr. Alain said earlier,
if something happens to his drinking water, who is going to be
responsible, who will help out? These are our fears. We have to
express these words beforehand, not after the fact.
THE CHAIRMAN:
And up until now the information sessions and the literature
that were given did not convince you.
MRS. GHISLAINE GILBERT:
It didn't convince me at all that this project was profitable
for us.
THE CHAIRMAN:
And it didn't abate your fears either, if I understand
correctly.
MRS. GHISLAINE GILBERT:
No, I'm saying that when such a major industry is submitting a
project like this one, it always sounds wonderful because they're
thinking of their own interests, and not ours.
If they're not making any money they're not going to build that
pipeline, so the intent is to make money and to trade. I don't see why
we should be the ones paying for that.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Paré.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):
Mr. Chairman, I have a brief remark, because it's the third
brief which seems to confirm that Vermont refused that a network go
through their lands. I must say that until now nothing can tell us
that the Vermont authorities refused this project. The project has not
been submitted to the Vermont authorities, according to our
information, and I think...
MRS. GHISLAINE GILBERT:
Are you talking about the last project or other projects?
MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):
In your brief, and in other people's briefs, people are saying,
'Well, people in Vermont are refusing, are rejecting such a pipeline',
but to our knowledge, or the knowledge of The Commission, the State of
Vermont has not refused for such a network to go through the land
there.
There is natural gas serving certain towns of Vermont, and
villages, and there might be similar networks in the future, but what
I'm saying is we do not have any official or objective information
which would allow us to receive this information as being true, and if
you do have further information you should tell The Commission. If
not, we should not state such things without confirming it.
MRS. GHISLAINE GILBERT:
I've read that they wanted to protect their wetlands.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):
Maybe American promoters or potential clients refer to the fact
that crossing wetlands may result in some problems. This issue was
raised, but it is not right to say, at the time being, that the
Vermont authorities refused or rejected a pipeline project.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Except for maybe further information to the contrary in the
future. Thank you.
Mr. Cloutier.
MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):
You've mentioned earlier, Mrs. Gilbert, that when you were mayor
you attempted to set up civil security services or department, and you
weren't very successful.
MRS. GHISLAINE GILBERT:
Yes, that is correct.
MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):
Earlier we heard from Mr. Mayor about the setting up of an
emergency response team. According to you, what problems could arise,
what could be the concerns related to the setting up of such a
emergency response team, given your experience?
MRS. GHISLAINE GILBERT:
I'm not saying there was no organized system of civil security,
but it was very simple: a couple of people called one another, if
there's nobody home, well... My project was to go much further. We
asked someone from the department, from the Ministry to explain to us
what could be done, but it didn't materialize. The problem that I see
is that we're far away. It's nice to talk about the Red Cross...
MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):
Why didn't it take shape?
MRS. GHISLAINE GILBERT:
Well, I didn't have time to set up this project to complete it.
MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):
That was due to lack of time?
MRS. GHISLAINE GILBERT:
Yes. It could have been done, yes, but given all the issues at
hand, we couldn't complete the setting up of that system. I'm not
saying that the municipality couldn't organize such a network, it is
quite possible, but when an accident would happen, whether you're
talking about the Red Cross or the army, we're an hour's driving time
from these services, so this is where the problem lies. I don't see
how we could organize something very major.
If there is an explosion - maybe there will never be any
explosion, but we're not going to sit and wait, it might happen, so we
have to provide services, and we have to start over every year, and
prepare a list of people in charge of the safety of our citizens, and
we're a small municipality so there aren't too many people ready to
help out and to be there when the time comes, so this where I see the
problem.
MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):
Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Thank you, Mrs. Gilbert. We'll take a fifteen minute break.
... UPON RECESSING AND UPON RESUMING...
THE CHAIRMAN:
Let's resume with the representatives of the Marc Beloin and
Hélène Parizeau farm.
MR. MARC BELOIN:
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Commissioners, my name is Marc Beloin, owner,
together with my wife, of a dairy farm located in East Hereford. We
decided to live in the country for the tranquility, large expanses and
the freedom. We've worked very hard to improve our business and make
it profitable. We want to ensure a good future for our children in
farming, if possible.
The project of a gas line has cast some doubts about the future
value of our farm. The devaluation of our land has already started,
since, according to a representative of TQM, it might loosen...
Grassland is now in grade 5 to 7. In my view this grassland provides
first rate output. What would be the worth of my farm when it has to
deal with a perpetual servitude for gas?
A future owner or buyer would not want to see their quality of
life go down, and to live with all the problems and inconveniences
that will increase in time.
We want to point out something important, TQM surveyors, or
other employees never ask for our permission before coming onto our
land and moving around on our property, they have no respect for our
freedom, and what are they going to do, how far are they going to go
when we give them the right to go on our land.
Our freedom has been disrupted. On a June Sunday, while we're
working on the hay, surveyors came and set themselves on our land
without any permission. First of all they parked their car near the
shed and then on our driveway, and they even set up their equipment on
our path and my wife had to go around and circumvent their equipment
to get into our house, and these invaders were looking at her
threateningly. I mean, one wonders what kind of country we live in or
what kind of world we live in.
I also have some questions with respect to the future metering
station, which would be about five hundred feet from our house. I can
no longer admire nature when this station comes to pollute the view
that I have.
Secondly, they are going to set up a compression station. Who
knows what they're going to set up next. Also noise would be a
problem from this compression station. From what we know the
compression station will be equipped with turbines similar to a jet
engine.
The TQM representative, when we met, probably Mr. Roger Sénécal,
assured as that there will not be any noise, however I'm wondering
about the truth of what he says, because he says everybody is signing
up for gas, and that was completely false. When I talked to people,
other friends in the village, I learned that nobody had signed for
gas, far from it.
Now, coming back to the compression station, at the East
Hereford hearings Mr. Jean Trudelle told us that the compression
station would be designed to meet municipal standards, i.e. forty to
seventy decibels, depending on the zone, so this means that one day or
another a perpetual noise would be present, and would perturb our
tranquility, which is worth its weight in gold.
Secondly, there are smells due to the mercaptan, which is a
product added to natural gas to detect leaks. When the pressure is
too high a valve opens up and gives off these product results, which
smells like rotten eggs, and it goes through the chimney.
A resident from Stukely South now regrets deeply having sold a
piece of land to Gas Metropolitan for construction of a compression
station, because since then his place smells like rotten eggs for
several days, and the whole village, in fact, smells.
I am opposed to this gas line project for TQM, and the land
where they want to set up their station is a gravel land where on
either side there are wetlands. Why select these wetlands, which are
natural pollutants, to set up these installations?
In addition, there's a danger of fire and explosion. Over the
past ten years, in the United States, there have been close to nine
hundred accidents caused by gas leaks. These accidents have been
fatal, resulted in several injuries, and hundreds of millions in
damage.
Being located on this side of the metering station, which
eventually will be accompanied by a compression station - I mean, will
insurance companies want to insure me? If they do, at what price? I
mean, not to mention fire and explosion.
I mean, you should remember that the population of East Hereford
is located far from hospitals in case of emergency. The University
Health Centre of the Estrie, or Eastern Townships, just located in
Fleurmont, is about an hour and a quarter by road from East Hereford.
Presently Beecher Falls firefighters are not equipped to meet
any emergency needs in case of gas leaks. The municipality of East
Hereford will have to invest additional amounts to cover the costs of
volunteer firefighters. In addition they will have to purchase
additional equipment to deal with eventual fires or explosions, and
this will increase expenses of the municipality.
It seems that the people from Vermont don't want the gas line to
go through their place because of their wetlands. Why should we feel
sorry for their wetlands and allow our wetlands to be ravaged? Why
should we disrupt our waterways, destroy our landscapes, change the
face of our countryside, and allow pipelines onto our virgin lands?
What do they have more than we do, these people from Vermont,
for them to be respected? Would we be stupid enough to accept all
these inconveniences to supply the U.S. with gas? Are we going to
continue behaving like sheep, and allow someone else to take the wool
from our backs?
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to point out that on Monday, July 28,
1997, around four o'clock in the afternoon, I received a call from Mr.
Roger Sénécal. He asked me for permission to do archeological digs on
the river near my property. He offered me three hundred dollars for
this right and to do his search on my land. I refused the offer.
In my view, the Indians came here because they heard that they
had found a stone, or some object of some sort, which they used to
build the Canaan bridge. The Hall River should be a waterway that
flows into the Connecticut River in the United States in addition.
More and more there was - several million years ago the native
Indians invaded our territory. All the discoveries done in front in
the region are more and more accepted, and that this gas line should
go through the Eastern Township and East Hereford. Are we stupid
enough to let everything be destroyed.
We're asking ourselves all kinds of questions. What quality of
life are we going to have in the countryside if we hear the noise of a
jet engine several hours a day. Particularly my house is about five
hundred feet from the compression station.
What value would our farm have if there's noise, if it smells
like rotten eggs. If there is a perpetual danger of fire and
explosion. For all these reasons we recommend that TQM use another
line for the transmission of its natural gas.
They can go next to the current right of way of the Montreal
pipeline, that would be much more logical. Thank you, Mr. Chairman
and Commissioners. We're counting on you to cancel this project in
the Eastern Townships.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Thank you very much, Mr. Beloin. You point out in your brief
that the inconvenience and the problems would increase with time. Can
you explain how these problems would increase with time?
MR. MARC BELOIN:
Because we know that at the beginning there's going to be a
metering station, a compression station, but then they're not telling
us what we're going to have in the future. There's all kinds of
things that we don't know.
THE CHAIRMAN:
What could we have in addition to a compression station and
metering station? What fears do you have?
MR. MARC BELOIN:
Well, it's hard to imagine what they have.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Could they have worse than that?
MR. MARC BELOIN:
Of course. With them you never know, because when the TQM agent
came to see us, they said there was noise, and I asked him a question
indirectly, whether there will be any noise with a compression station
five hundred feet away, it's important for us to know, and he said,
'Well, there's not going to be any noise', but at the hearing they
said there was 'X' number of decibels. I mean, if I hear this all
year round, it's not very interesting.
THE CHAIRMAN:
And for you, forty to seventy decibels, what does that
represent, in terms of noise? Do you have any idea? Is it the noise
of a truck on the road, or a river? Do you have any idea what that
represents?
MR. MARC BELOIN:
No, no idea, but we know that the engine sounds like a jet
engine. At the airport we hear these kinds of noises and the noise of
the turbines.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Now, you talk about the presence of a surveyor, or a surveyor
who came to your land, could you give us some details? Well, when we
read this, it's obviously clear that you did not invent the situation,
but this happened once?
MR. MARC BELOIN:
Yes, a Sunday afternoon we were working on our hay, and they
came and put their car next to our garage without asking for our
permission. They were basically blocking my path, and I asked them -
they didn't ask for permission.
THE CHAIRMAN:
So this happened several times?
MR. MARC BELOIN:
Well, sometimes they came, but they never saw me.
THE CHAIRMAN:
In your opinion how many times has this happened?
MR. MARC BELOIN:
Well, they came once in the beginning, but I haven't seen them.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Did you talk to them, did you welcome them? Did you offer them
coffee, or what?
MR. MARC BELOIN:
Well, I didn't see them. I saw their vehicle, and that was it.
I mean, sometimes they come in without my knowing it, and they feel at
home.
THE CHAIRMAN:
You talk about your view that would be polluted with the
possible arrival of the metering station. Try to describe this view
for us.
MR. MARC BELOIN:
Well, when I look through my window up front, we see the
compression station smack in front of us.
THE CHAIRMAN:
What do you see right now, trees?
MR. MARC BELOIN:
Yes, we see the forest, we see the public ways, and I prefer to
see that than a compression station.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Well, a compression station is not necessarily ugly.
MR. MARC BELOIN:
Well, what about the smell?
THE CHAIRMAN:
Well, the smell, based on the information that you have, do you
think there will be a danger of the smell, because the developer told
us in a gas line like that there's no smell, and the compression and
metering stations there's no smell either if it is not in a
distribution sector.
MR. MARC BELOIN:
Well, I called a guy from Stuckley South, and he told me that it
smells rotten eggs at least once a month, if not more, and regretted
having sold his land, and the people around the village didn't seem to
like him very much for that.
THE CHAIRMAN:
And the representative that you met, Mr. Sénécal, told you that
everybody was signing up for gas?
MR. MARC BELOIN:
That's exactly what he said.
THE CHAIRMAN:
And in your view, that's not the case.
MR. MARC BELOIN:
They are pressure sales people.
THE CHAIRMAN:
But from what I can see, they are sales people, in your case
anyway, who didn't succeed.
MR. MARC BELOIN:
No.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Okay. How about the archeological digs, can you describe these
for us? What happened? What were they asking for, what kind of
permission were they asking?
MR. MARC BELOIN:
Well, they're asking for permission to get on my land to do
these archeological digs.
THE CHAIRMAN:
They didn't describe the type of digs that they were doing,
what... no? And the time that it took?
MR. MARC BELOIN:
Well, they offered me three hundred dollars, and that was it.
THE CHAIRMAN:
And you turned it down?
MR. MARC BELOIN:
Yes, I did.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Paré?
MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):
Just to continue on that, Mr. Beloin, were you against any type
of archeological digs, or would you accept something if they were
justified?
MR. MARC BELOIN:
I would object to them.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):
Well, you say all these discoveries - no discoveries should
warrant the gas line to go through East Hereford. I mean, can we
afford to lose our history, you asked. Now, if there was no gas line
project, If university researchers, for example, wanted to do
archeological digs, would you be against it?
MR. MARC BELOIN:
Well, last year they came for about two months, and they didn't
find anything.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):
Okay. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Cloutier?
MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):
Mr. Beloin, you say that your property has already been devalued
with the project we're discussing this evening. In particular, you
say that your prairie is now graded five to seven. So, from what I
understand, in your view your prairie was classified higher before.
Now, do you have any documents to confirm that your prairie was a
higher grade than category five to seven?
MR. MARC BELOIN:
Well, they're based on the forecast that was done around. The
people I checked with are people who are in agriculture, and they
looked at the quality of production that we have on our prairie
compared with others.
MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):
So that's what you base yourself on.
MR. MARC BELOIN:
Yes.
MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):
And it's based on this criterion that you feel that your prairie
is of a higher quality. Thank you very much.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Beloin, thank you for very much for your presentation.
Mr. Normand Riendeau. Good evening.
MR. NORMAND RIENDEAU:
Good evening, Sir. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Commissioners, I've been
living in East Hereford. I was born here and my father was born here
also, before me, and I sit here because I dearly love this area, and
for nothing in the world I would want an accident, due to negligence,
to destroy, partly or wholly, this peaceful village.
My concerns about the pipeline project are three fold:
construction; the responsibility of our municipality; and what's going
to happen after construction.
About the construction of the pipeline, how will the work be
carried out? How can we be sure of the solidity of the bed supporting
this pipeline? How can we be convinced that we're not going to be the
scapegoats for subcontractors using all sorts of tricks to save time
and money?
How can we be certain that a serious inspector will check each
meter of work, and while this inspector is away for lunch, the
employees, for instance, won't try to hide the risky work.
If the municipality assumes responsibilities, as we heard, why
wouldn't the municipality be entitled to have its own inspector?
After all, this is a heavy responsibility for our municipality, it
would be normal for the municipality to be aware of the way the work
is carried out.
The municipality is facing a complex problem because it doesn't
really know what to expect after one, five, ten or thirty years. It
becomes responsible - for such a small municipality, it doesn't seem
to make sense to me.
Will the proposed compensation be sufficient to compensate for
the civil security program and to take care of sophisticated
equipment, to meet the emergencies, and to set up firefighting service
and special measures in case of fire and explosion? All this seems to
be illogical to me.
Another concern that I have is the result of an article I read
April 1997, in The Chronicle. There's problems with the 4x4s, which
damaged the gas pipelines in Vermont. They drive over the rights-of-
way, and therefore damage the piping, and this pipeline can freeze
therefore in winter, and be seriously damaged.
It is therefore recommended not to circulate, not to drive over
these pipes, and in our area the logging operations are the sources of
revenues of the majority of people. How can we can prevent a tractor
[inaudible] truck, with or without a wood load, to cross the land in
order to meet the needs of its owners? This is impossible and doesn't
make sense.
What will happen if the pipelines are run over in this way, or
tramped? Who is going to pay for the breakage, if any? Would it be
the owner, the municipality or TQM, or should the municipality prevent
any crossing on that network? This is flatly impossible.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Commissioners, as you can see my
concerns are serious and I'm not the only one. This Lachenaie/East
Hereford network is not the only alternative of the company. I hope
that you'll be enlightened enough on the dangerous impact of such a
project on us, to recommend that it will not be implemented in our
area.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Riendeau, for your analysis, which was very well
structured and relevant, talking about the construction, the
responsibility of the municipalities and the issue of after
construction.
Let's talk about construction, first of all. You're saying you
have some doubts as to the control of the work, saying that, well,
anything can happen. Maybe some contractors won't abide by the
specifications, and the employees will take an opportunity, while the
supervisor is away for lunch, to compromise the safety of the work,
and there has been explanations given on the control steps that may be
taken, and the Ministry of Environment will make sure that its
representatives do exercise some control, and the MRCs will deal with
this control.
There are codes and standards applicable, and the construction
has to be done according to the practices of construction. Doesn't it
make you feel better?
MR. NORMAND RIENDEAU:
Of course. If there are supervisors at all times of the day to
supervise there wouldn't be any problem, but I'm wondering, if the
municipality is to become responsible after a number of years, I think
the municipalities should also be entitled to have someone delegate
their... representing the municipality to supervise the work, and make
sure that everything is done correctly.
THE CHAIRMAN:
If the municipality were to have its own inspector, do you think
this would create a problem for the municipality to have an inspector?
MR. NORMAND RIENDEAU:
I don't know.
THE CHAIRMAN:
But, according to you, could there be a funding problem or could
we find such a supervisor, or maybe a supervision committee could do
the job; maybe people like you who would take turns doing the work.
According to what we hear, it's not going to be very long,
because they can get ahead at the rate of one kilometre a day, so it's
quite fast.
MR. NORMAND RIENDEAU:
My concern is the way the land is prepared, the soil is
prepared. We've seen in Vermont, in some locations, pipelines were
laid down and some rocks were put beside it, I don't think this is
right. Was there anyone there to check how the job was done?
THE CHAIRMAN:
I can't answer that. Maybe at the time they didn't have these
people or this type of information. You're talking about problems
which might occur after construction. It's the first time I hear
about danger that the 4x4 vehicles could represent.
We're told that they would use the corridors created by the
pipeline, and this was a concern for the owners, but you're telling me
about hazards.
MR. NORMAND RIENDEAU:
Yes, if they tramp them over the wintertime, and the land
freezes, the pipeline can freeze. If there's frost on the pipeline,
the pipe would move. it will have to. Until now the seller told us
that even a farm tractor could cross a pipeline.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Do you still have this newspaper article that you're referring
to?
MR. NORMAND RIENDEAU:
I don't have it with me here tonight.
THE CHAIRMAN:
We would be interested in getting a copy of it, if you have it,
if someone has it. We could make a photocopy here, at the back of the
room, and give it back to you. Thank you.
Mr. Paré. MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):
One of the concerns that you are referring to, you're wondering
whether the compensation would be sufficient for a municipality to
face major civil responsibilities. In your opinion, what type of
commitment would be satisfactory so that the municipality could meet
its responsibilities; would it be a financial commitment, a fund,
provisional funding, or something or that sort?
(Sound cut for a few moments. Now resuming)
MR. NORMAND RIENDEAU:
When could the municipalities get organized and at what cost?
How could they get organized in case they have to fight some
explosions or leaks?
MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):
My question is, for this type of project would you expect that a
promoter or developer would make some commitments or put down some
money to help out the municipalities meeting these responsibilities?
MR. NORMAND RIENDEAU:
Insofar as I'm concerned, I haven't been told whether the
developers are asked for some securities in the event of breakage, and
if not would this be incumbent upon the municipality?
MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):
When you're talking about the damage that could be done by
vehicles, are you talking about recreational vehicles? The R.V.s who
are driving over the land without any permission, or are you referring
mostly to other types of vehicles, like logging and farming vehicles?
MR. NORMAND RIENDEAU:
I'm talking about logging and farming vehicles, because I don't
think that 4x4s can freeze the ground hard enough to move the
pipeline, but if you use the lumber or truck or - and in our area the
frost goes down six to seven feet, and I don't think the pipeline goes
down that deep. I'm not aware...
MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):
Well, Mr. Riendeau, you're talking about six to seven feet.
MR. NORMAND RIENDEAU:
Well, it depends on the type of soil that we have here.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):
So, on a regular basis, from one winter to the next it can
freeze down to that depth.
MR. NORMAND RIENDEAU:
Yes.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):
Thank you, Mr. Riendeau.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Riendeau.
MR. NORMAND RIENDEAU:
Would you like to have a copy of this article?
THE CHAIRMAN:
Yes. We already have it, thank you.
I now call the representative of the farm Yval Inc. Good
evening.
MR. YVON ALAIN:
Good evening, Mr. Commissioners and Mr. Chairman. I'm the co-
owner of Ferme Yval Incorporated, located at 285 Route 253, East
Hereford. I've been living on this farm for forty-seven years. This
is a dairy and forest farm. I have about four hundred and fifty
acres, half of which is cultivated and the other half forest. In 1950
my parents decided to purchase a farm that could help raise their
family without them being forced to work outside.
During a trip to the region, when they saw a farm which was for
sale, they were immediately taken by the beauty of the countryside and
the quality of the soil. They sold their farm, which was located in
Saint-Raymond-de-Portneuf to move to their new farm. They were proud
of their purchase and felt that they had one of the most beautiful and
most productive farms in the region.
Their claim was justified in 1975, when they won the first prize
in the regional prairie contest, in 1981, and was first across the
province for the best output for corn during the [inaudible] contests.
Over the past thirty-one years my wife and I and our children
have been working to improve our farm. We've elected to live in the
countryside, and we have the right to live there freely, in peace, and
to feel at home. However, over the past few months a large cloud has
been hanging over our heads.
During the fall of 1996 two people passed through our land
without permission. When the line for a gas line was presented to us
on January 28, 1997, we noticed that these people were following,
approximately, the line that was submitted.
When we reported this to the representatives of TQM they assured
us that this was done by error and that they would no longer come back
to our land without permission, yet all their great promises were
forgotten very quickly.
Ever since, several owners have been complaining about an
invader who has appropriated the right of coming on to their lands, on
to their property without permission. How can we have any faith in a
company that promises, in a public meeting, that this would not happen
anymore, and forget its promises so easily. What would it do when the
project is accepted?
Other people, whose properties are not even affected by the
project, have also seen them doing survey work on their properties.
During the BAPE hearings in East Hereford, the representatives of TQM
could not provide any explanations regarding these facts.
At the information meeting of January 28 everything seemed to
have been decided without consulting the owners involved. The
information provided during that evening only presented a positive...
in their view everything was positive.
When one person asked them what would happen if somebody refused
to sign, they said something like, 'We will come and see you often,
often, and we'll try to convince you, and if it doesn't work, you will
be expropriated.'
Now, this backhanded way of dealing with owners is not in
conformance with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When people
started being informed about the potential dangers of a pipeline, the
TQM agents became more and more in a hurry to have the purchase
options signed by the owners. We felt the pressure rising before and
during the hearings on July 4, 1997.
The following day after the BAPE hearings in East Hereford,
between eight twenty and eighty-twenty-five, Mr. Sénécal called us,
telling us that he had our cheques and he wanted us to sign this
purchase option. Can we talk about being in a hurry or harassment?
There seems to be a race between TQM and its competitors for these
contracts for gas transmission.
The article that appeared in Les Affaires, on Page 10, Saturday,
July 5, 1997, only proved that. This is an extract of the article
written by Mr. Alain Duhamel:
"In August, when we file our application we would be much more
advanced than our competitor in Canada, and our competitor knows that,
said Robert Turgeon, President of TQM. When we file our application
we will already have done more work on the field than our competitor.
They also know that on the U.S. side we are one year ahead of them."
The first TQM project followed the gas line which is now used
for gas transmission to Boston. This line goes through a good portion
of the State of Vermont. Why change the line? Was it because it was
much easier and much faster to obtain the rights of way in Quebec than
in Vermont?
Earlier on the Commissioner said they had never been refused
officially by the State of Vermont, but perhaps they realized that
with the new environmental laws that you have in Vermont, which we've
had over the past year or two, they found that perhaps it would be
much more difficult for them to go through Vermont than Quebec, and
since they were in a hurry they look for the fastest way to do so.
Now, if people from Vermont did not want the gas line because of
their wetlands and their environmental regulations, why would TQM want
to solve its problems at our expense? Would we be more stupid than
the people from Vermont, to accept this project? If this project is
accepted the problems with all-terrain vehicles and skidoos would be
amplified.
Once these people have the opportunity to go through somebody's
land they do so, and they exaggerate - they cut the fences, break your
barriers, move around your land. In other words, they do things that
they would not do on their own land.
Other sports people and undesirables would do the same thing,
without permission, like TQM just did. An article that appeared in
The Chronicle, on April 16, 1997 proves that Portland PipeLine
Corporation, which owns a natural gas system, has all kinds of
difficulties with all-terrain vehicles; this includes damages to the
covering of their pipes, which could lead to corrosion and eventually
leaks.
Over the past few years, we've been experiencing all kinds of
problems with skidoos. Even if the land is fenced off, there are
people who take themselves - who think they are Jacques Villeneuve,
and race right across your land.
All this circulation causes loss of fodder and loss of revenue.
Who is going to pay for all these losses? In the 1970s we received a
lawsuit for ninety thousand dollars, also involving the skidoo club.
An American had been injured while charging and trying to break a
barrier, and they wanted to hold us responsible.
At first sight, the amount of money that our farm could get from
the gas line project, twenty-five to thirty thousand dollars, may seem
attractive, but that doesn't take into account all the inconveniences
of a project, i.e. a permanent right-of-way on our farm, about nine
hundred and seventy-five meters, restrictions for future construction
near the gas right-of-way, disruptions due to the gas line, risks of
fire.
Even if we're told that it's not dangerous, we can see that when
you consult the archives, that when the gas line ages there are leaks
and fire. We're told that the safety perimeter is seven hundred and
fifty meters for a major fire. Now, if we have a fire anywhere along
the gas line, the properties located around the gas line would
obviously lose their value.
For the time being we're talking about one gas line, but if
there is a corridor that's open, who can assure us that they're not
going to take advantage of that to install other conduits, such as a
pipeline for liquid gas.
For all the reasons outlined above, and for many others, we
object to this project on our farm, and we suggest that it come back
to the original line which went through Vermont. Thank you for
listening to me, Mr. Commissioners.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Thank you very much for your presentation. I congratulate your
family for the prizes you've won for the management of your farm; it's
impressive. I'm going to try and check the accuracy of some of the
statements you've made. You said that at a meeting you were told that
we'll come and see you often, often. We'll try to convince you.
MR. YVON ALAIN:
That was said at a public hearing, at the information session in
Coaticook.
THE CHAIRMAN:
That's fine, but you said they said if it doesn't work you'll be
expropriated.
MR. YVON ALAIN:
That was said in the room by Mr. - I forget his name now.
Roger somebody. Trudelle, or something. He said that. Maybe he
thought he was joking, but he said it.
THE CHAIRMAN:
And that's the expression he used, from what you can remember.
And you received a phone call on July 4, where you were told, 'I've
got your cheque, and I want to make an appointment with you for ten
o'clock to have you sign the purchase option.'
Now, in your personal case you have analyzed the compensation
that will be paid to you with respect to inconveniences or
disadvantages, and you feel that the conveniences are much more
significant than the compensation that you'll be getting, and for that
reason you don't agree with the project.
MR. YVON ALAIN:
Well, not just for that reason, it's for a whole bunch of
reasons; just because we just don't want it to go anywhere our place.
I mean, we've got the peace and tranquility, we want it as it is.
Now, the only positive thing I can see in this project is that TQM
will try to exploit a tax that they could pay to the municipality, and
that's why the municipalities approve the project.
I spoke to a landowner on the U.S. side this week, and he told
me the exact same thing. He says, 'We don't want it, but the
municipality wants it because they're going to pay taxes.' Here in
Quebec, for example, I mean they've got things going from the
municipal to the federal government to the provincial. Now, there's
shovelling of responsibility from the top level of government to the
other, so municipalities see this as a source of revenue.
They have no certainty, whatsoever, that things would be
positive over the long term. Right now this gas line system, I see it
as - it's almost like a spidered web, you see. A spider's web.
They've got pipelines all over the place, and if one breaks down they
can go get their gas from some place else. Now, they're asking for us
to give them the right to go through our lands. Who tells us that
they're going to be paying the same taxes? I mean, I can say there is
a piece of equipment in a factory when the factory pays taxes, but the
equipment doesn't pay any tax.
I mean, we checked with evaluators to see if it's going to be
permanent and nobody can give us any answers right now. We asked the
municipality to check with Quebec City to see, and we still don't have
any answers.
THE CHAIRMAN:
And you, as a farmer, if you were given possibility of obtaining
- being supplied with gas, would you want it?
MR. YVON ALAIN:
I don't see any advantage in that. It would be absolutely
nothing. All we get is a little bit of electricity for our engines,
motors, but, I mean, the rest - what, we heat the house, but I mean -
well, and we heat with wood, so I will not see any advantage in that
regard for the farm.
THE CHAIRMAN:
On Page 2 of your brief you say that from what you can see,
you've lost all confidence or trust in the company, in the developer.
This is quite severe.
MR. YVON ALAIN:
Well, they told us one thing, and they don't seem to be able to
keep their promises. At the East Hereford hearings people asked them
questions as the representatives - the TQM representative there, the
surveyor - I don't know.
They were supposed to be the bosses and they didn't seem to have
any idea, or they didn't seem to know why they did survey work on
properties where the gas line doesn't even go right now, so I don't
know if you had any answers to these questions a few days after, but I
did not get any answers, and I still haven't seen any anywhere.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Well, there are a few answers, I believe, in the documents that
were filed, but if I understand correctly, for you, what broke the
trust that you could have had is the fact that they don't keep their
word, and the fact that the right hand doesn't know what the left hand
is doing.
MR. YVON ALAIN:
Yes, they don't seem to know. Another thing that I learned this
week, when I asked them, I said, 'If they're sending this gas to the
U.S.', we asked the representative, I believe it was Mr. Sénécal, we
asked him, 'Why don't they go completely on the other side of East
Hereford', and he said, 'Well, that's a project that we had never
looked into.'
Now, this week, when I went to see the farmer on the U.S. side,
he told me, he said, 'I learned this from somebody in Canada, who said
it was going through them.' He said, 'In August 1996 a U.S. engineer
met him and he had seen a plan, and based on that plan, on the U.S.
side, the gas line was going through the North before getting to East
Hereford. There was a farm on the U.S. side, Robinson, I believe it's
called. You cross the mountain, and then the line went along the
river on the other side.
THE CHAIRMAN:
So it went through Robinson on the U.S. side. Robinson Farm.
MR. YVON ALAIN:
Yes, he told me, he said he had seen some plans, and he said I'm
sure, I know it's not going to go through our farm, and in January he
told me, he said he met somebody from Canada and they told him they
have all kinds of pipelines near their lands, and he said he was very
surprised to hear that.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Thank you.
Mr. Cloutier? Mr. Paré?
MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):
Yes. Mr. Alain, you talked about problems you have with skidoo
drivers - and you're not the first one to have raised these problems -
that will be created by the opening of a passage or corridor like
this. You could also have the same problems with all-terrain vehicles
in the summer.
Now, what measures could be envisaged, either as an owner or as
a municipal government, what measures could be envisaged for this kind
of problem, to deal with this kind of problem? Well, certain people
who spoke at other hearings told us that they had some success by
putting barriers or signs up saying it's private property.
MR. YVON ALAIN:
Well, the fact - it's true that if it's going to open a
corridor in the forest, straight line, it's always going to be
tempting. In the winter - look, on my land, where the right-of-way
should go, where the pipeline should go, normally they should have a
fence, but in the winter, when you have snow coming in through the
right of way maybe they'll be tempted to go on the other side because
of the snow, and it can go through there.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):
But, in your view, do you think the citizens could get together
or set up a committee, or the municipality could set up a committee?
MR. YVON ALAIN:
In our place they have a permission, they have a path. It's
only this winter there's a place where they went through. I had
planted some branches, just to show them to stay on a path. After a
few days one of them found it very funny, but he went straight through
the branches; perhaps not most of them, or the majority, most of the
users may be law abiding, but there's some smart aleck somewhere who
will obviously damage the reputation of everybody else.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):
You also referred to Vermont, and when I raise this question,
it's primarily because I feel that we should talk about it, and
rightfully so, to the extent that it can help enlighten the debate.
You talked about recent legislation in Vermont, do you have any
information on this?
MR. YVON ALAIN:
No, not directly. All the details that I got had to deal with
woodcutting, which I know that there's a U.S. forest operator who came
and saw me, and recently he said he attended a meeting and there were
Canadian owners at this meeting, and he said, 'Look, we thought it was
severe in terms of the environment, but it's nothing compared to what
you guys have.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):
Thank you very much.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Thank you very much for your testimony.
I now call La Fondation Bel Environ. Good evening again.
MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:
Good evening, President of BAPE and Mr. Commissioners. I am
Lucie Roy-Alain, President of Fondation Bel Environ of East Hereford.
I represent this organization. The Board of Directors is made up of
seven people, according to the by-laws and rules of our committees
everyone in East Hereford, that is three hundred and twenty-five
people, is a member of Fondation Bel Environ.
The brief of our foundation starts by this beautiful thought by
St-Antoine de St-Exupéry: "We do not inherit the land of our
ancestors, we borrow it to hand it over to our children." So today
this is our guide to oppose this project, the pipeline to East
Hereford in the Eastern Townships.
The Fondation Bel Environ is an organization created in 1991 to
make sure that the East Hereford environment would be protected
forever. Our municipality is probably the only one in Quebec, and
maybe in Canada, to have this tool to ensure 'perennité' in these
fields, and is continuing the work that was started by the
embellishment committee, the Hereford Township Social Club and local
organizations ten years earlier.
Before 1981, East Hereford was very little known, and quite
often people living there didn't dare mention the name of their town,
but provincial contests have made our town known, and we're now
prouder of living here, and this has increased the feeling of
belonging among our population.
East Hereford has won the contest of Flowers of Countryside of
Quebec. These contests were won in 1983, 1989 and 1992, and we had the
title of excellence in 1994 and 1995, and won the title of Flowered
Countryside of Canada in 1996. In March 1994 East Hereford received
the prize for the best public organization of the Eastern Townships
tourism prizes.
In the La Tribune newspaper of March 16, we can read the
involvement of this municipality and its citizens and the improvement
in the quality of life. It is a sure thing because this municipality
has received seven prizes on October 9, 1996, Fondation d'Environ of
East Hereford received the prize of excellence in environments given
by the Eastern Townships foundation in the environment because our
organization worked very diligently, starting up a domestic composting
program, collection of Christmas trees and close recovery of printer
cartridges and recovery plastic containers in toxic waste.
In 1995 and 1996 it was a contender in the Phenix prize for
Quebec Selective Collection, garbage collection, because it managed to
reduce the green bag garbage by approximately sixty-five percent. It
is, therefore, a leader in the Coaticook MRC.
In 1996 the municipality of East Hereford and Fondation Bel
Environ became a member of the Eastern Township green zone charter.
We're happy to be part of the greenest region of Quebec.
Journalists of L'Actualite, for May 1997, have chosen East
Hereford among the twenty most beautiful villages in Quebec. In the
magazine Fleurs, Plantes et Jardins, of June, July, East Hereford was
quoted among sixteen best flowered municipalities in Quebec.
Since 1990 the municipality has been recognized for its mountain
bike trails, and this year will have the countryside bike trail and
the flower bike trail. Since 1966 Marcel Lauzon Sawmill has created
jobs in East Hereford, and has been operating a dryer thanks to the
co-generation, since 1993, and has received some prizes for its
involvement towards the improvement of the environment.
In 1997, because of the purity of its underground water table,
East Hereford was able to set up a fish farm, the 'Des Bobines', which
gave new hope to our citizens, and in general the public, the
Christmas tree producers, dairy and meat producers, are making efforts
to protect our environment.
In the Eastern Townships tourist guide, published by the Eastern
Townships Tourist Association, with Tourism Quebec, at the bottom of
Page 46, the municipality of St-Venant is described as follows:
"Along the American border, people who love nature will be happy to
see the small village of East Hereford in a valley of one million fir
trees, and the mountain bike trail fans will love to go through Mount
Hereford on approximately seventy kilometers of marked trails, and
stopping by local craft shops."
If a pipeline goes through our area, do you think our village
will still be known, as it has been in the past, for its beauty, and
we will be, therefore, losing tourism. This brief profile of our
municipality has been submitted to you to show you that this project
of pipeline is incompatible with the quality of life that we promote
in East Hereford.
The rumour of an increase of land value, and the possibility of
providing gas for Coaticook industry is not sufficient reasons for us
to accept this pipeline because TQM is not signing any commitments
with the municipalities confirming the substantial and long term
monetary participation, and at hearings TQM didn't have any request
for natural gas in Coaticook, and why would it have to go through East
Hereford.
Were there any studies done on mercaptan? Recently in The
Tribune we read that practically eighty percent of breast cancer were
due to pollution. If we have a chance to live in the countryside,
where the area is less polluted than the city, why would we be silly
enough to accept additional pollution?
One day if we have the wisdom or preserving what we have, people
will be ready to pay a fortune to profit from this, and we have heard
that a coalition of artists, of which Richard Séguin is part of, a
famous composer and singer, objects to the sale of water. We have to
think about it, because if we give away our riches, other countries
won't pity us when we will be impoverished.
Fondation Bel Environ is not against development, but supports
sustainable development. Many efforts have been made to achieve this
in East Hereford, and this is why we have to oppose gigantic work
which is not necessary to us. We are a countryside municipality, and
we are wondering why we would accept such an infrastructure on our
territory in order to help the American market.
There's no reason for this pipeline to disturb our citizens and
their freedom, through noise, maybe [inaudible] and smells and heat?
Why should we be ready to accept all problems that this could cause to
our drinking water, rivers, farmlands, plants, endangered species and
natural landscapes?
We're far away from hospitals and ambulances, and our lack of
resources in matters of health and security are also major reasons for
us to object, to oppose the pipeline project. How can we feel
protected?
The reduction that has been announced, to reduce the number of
hours during which the customs office in East Hereford will be opened,
on East Hereford Road also, and to the possibilities of vandalism and
accidents - we can read on the Internet some testimonies during
hearings of the BAPE.
On July 2 Mr. Bruno Saint-Laurent said the following thing:
"The process has been set up to familiarize the municipalities with
the impact of this project. We've shown them a diagram, and for
various small municipalities, obviously we'll have to help out build
up a self help network. It's always the responsibility of the
municipality to set up an emergency system, because TQM cannot force
them to. At one point we're talking about a damper zone of seven
hundred and fifty meters."
At one point Mr. Robert Lapalme adds: "Public safety is, in
fact, what's involved here", and he's asking the MRC to take into
account the anthropic constraints, which may imply for a given zone,
to have a zoning by-law forbidding the construction close to the risky
area, and we'll have to make sure, like in Germany, to guarantee all
residents that whatever the type of accident or catastrophe involved,
emergency will be organized within fifteen minutes, and Mr. Robert
Lapalme answered: "Well, in Quebec the first part of your statement
is true, but the last part is not, that is the fifteen minutes."
Reading this we can ask ourselves a number of questions. Mr.
Saint-Laurent talks of familiarizing the municipalities with the
consequences and the fact that a self-help network should be set up.
Why weren't the volunteers consulted on this? Would they like to get
involved in such a project? Are they available? Can they be on hand
twenty-four hours a day? Do they have the skills for that, and he's
saying that it's always the responsibility of the municipalities, but
don't you think this is shovelling the responsibilities down to the
municipalities, and what will be the land taxes collectible by these
municipalities in the future?
Couldn't their personal riches decrease if these municipalities
could not expand, maybe future retirees will be forced to go and live
elsewhere, and deprive the municipality from additional revenues?
When Mr. Lapalme says that it's only the fifteen minutes that is not
there, don't you think that it is very important for the pipeline not
go to through such a small town, remote from health and safety
security services?
In July 1997, A Judge of V.V.C.F.Q., in a contest for the best
municipality, compared our town to Switzerland, and will the tourists
come again? Do we want them to stay away? Do we want the green
tourist to go away? Do we want to discourage the expansion of small
and medium size companies in East Hereford? Do we want to discourage
other small companies who would like to come and set up in our town
because of our reputation of green municipality?
And talking about archeology, interesting discoveries were made
this summer in neighbouring municipalities, and probably that our land
and [inaudible] have also beautiful historical secrets on the American
Indians.
At the BAPE hearings we've seen that the people in Vermont don't
want the pipeline to enter through Highwater because of their
wetlands, and I remember in East Hereford asking questions on that,
and that I invite you to read the verbatim, because the wetlands were
discussed, and I still see that issue on the Internet, because of
their wetlands and their environmental legislation, then why should we
accept this pipeline which will be used by the Americans.
It seems that TQM is more inclined to respect the American will
than ours. We also have wetlands, and we're convinced that a pipeline
can damage the Eastern Townships [inaudible] zones just as much as
Vermont land. Mr. President, Mr. Commissioners, we oppose this
pipeline in East Hereford in our green zone Eastern Townships.
I think it should go back to the first plan, that is to enter
the U.S. through Highwater, and there are other projects which could
feed the American market, and among others, the Texane la Tatham
Offshore and the Maritime and NorthEast PipeLines - M&E.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Commissioners, we thank you for your attention
that you will give to this presentation.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Thank you, Mrs. Roy-Alain, and once again congratulations for
the success and the numerous prizes that Fondation Bel Environ has
brought upon East Hereford, it is quite impressive.
You're mentioning, on the second page, that the population and
the municipality have been involved, and this has been recognized in
the Phenix prize, and you're talking about the reduction of green bag
content. Do you think this would be jeopardized through the pipeline?
You're saying that the success attained for reducing the green bag
was, in fact, due to the involvement and the cooperation of
municipality and the population.
We heard the Mayor today, that expressed an opinion rather
different from that expressed by some citizens in your foundation.
MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:
Of course there is no cooperation on that project because we all
have our opinion. Everyone's opinion is part of the freedom that we
have that belongs to every individual. In East Hereford not everyone
agrees with everyone else.
Of course, the municipality is looking at the rumour of the
increase of the land value because TQM has never met with the people
elected, to have them sign papers, they're asking us to sign papers,
but they haven't met them.
I've asked people at the municipal office, and I've been told
they've never been met by TQM representatives.
THE CHAIRMAN:
If we were to try and quantify, among this population of three
hundred and twenty-five people, could we say the people are for the
project or against; sixty percent, seventy percent?
MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:
Well, I haven't had time to check everyone's opinion, and I
cannot state any percentage, but generally speaking there's a lack of
information amongst our population, even though there are many things
that were provided, and quite often the people will trust what the
neighbour is saying, and what - well, there might be mistakes in what
- and errors in what the neighbours are saying.
Someone told me, for instance, that this project was good to
increase - I don't remember the right word - because for them the Sand
Island and exploitation was good for Quebec, and maybe I'm wrong, but
I don't think the Sand Island is located in Quebec. Well, maybe
Quebec not only wants to separate but wants to expand to the Atlantic.
THE CHAIRMAN:
You're talking about a number of things and you're giving
attributes, very good attributes to your village, do you feel that the
presence of a pipeline in your village would eliminate these
qualities?
MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:
Of course; the present line, of course, is crossing some areas
which might or may result in these qualities being eliminated.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Like what?
MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:
Like holes in our forests. We were never told where the
stations would be located, at what distance from the metering station,
for instance, and the compression station. We now know that there is
one expected to be in operation the following year, because we read it
in The Tribune, the Sherbrooke paper. These things are not very
aesthetic, and it's not fun to look at it, and they will be surrounded
by fences, and so on.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Thank you for your answer. You're saying that your organization
is for the sustainable development philosophy.
MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:
Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Do you feel that a project like the pipeline project can be
developed and implemented, taking into consideration this philosophy
is sustainable development? In other words, do you feel we could do
or carry out these projects in your area while respecting the concept
of sustainable development?
MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:
No, because we don't need this pipeline, and of course there
will be holes in our landscapes, and this will affect our wetlands,
our rivers and brooks, and it is sure that if a person would try to do
this sort of thing, that person wouldn't have the right to.
THE CHAIRMAN:
If I understand correctly, according to you the disappearance of
these qualities would mean that no one could say that your village
looks like little Switzerland. There are probably pipelines in
Switzerland, don't you think?
MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:
Well, I don't know. I was afraid you'd tell me about Gruyère
cheese, rather.
THE CHAIRMAN:
I have a feeling you're going to talk about it. You're talking
about promoting the expansion of a small and medium size companies,
don't you think that natural gas can be a factor which can promote
their coming into your village?
MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:
Well, natural gas - well, in Quebec we already have resources
that could be used, like Hydro-Quebec. I do not feel that it would be
even profitable for TQM to install a pipeline in East Hereford because
I think I saw or heard or read that even in Coaticook the expense
wouldn't be justified by revenues. I don't know exactly where I got
this information, though.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Paré.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):
There is logging in your area?
MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:
Yes.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):
So is this logging, according to you, done in full respect of
these environmental concerns?
MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:
I don't know how you call them, but I think there's some
legislation that you have to abide by if you're contravening to
sustainable development. There's an inspector, and does this apply to
logging operations [sic]
MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):
In your opinion, can't we imagine that some care or precautions
or control measures could be also taken, concerning the space occupied
by the pipeline?
MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:
In the logging operations there will be a hole made in the
forest. We heard about that all the time. We were told that no tree
will ever be allowed to grow on that right-of-way, which means that
there will be no trees forever, if we all understand this correctly,
and if I understand it correctly, only some fir trees would be
allowed.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):
Up until a few years ago people were complaining about logging
operations, complaining that even in parks they were doing a type of
cutting that destroyed the environment, but I think that we've
improved our cutting methods recently, which are more compatible with
the environment.
Probably in the future we'll have to live with pipelines or
linear equipment like electrical transmission lines, and maybe choices
will be made not to get it through this area, but it will have to
cross somewhere, and if we choose to have this type of equipment,
we're looking for steps that can be taken in order to limit their
impact during the implementation phase, and during the maintenance, so
I was wondering, you do have logging operations in your area, and you
have large sawmills in East Hereford, and in spite of all this you've
managed to preserve the landscape, don't you think that what happened
in East Hereford can be used as a model for other people to reduce the
impact of the pipeline?
MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:
I'm not a logging operator. I haven't been a logging operator
for a while, but... ninety-five percent of that wood comes from across
the border, so that sawmill won't make any holes in our landscape.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):
You're saying that the sawmill is using American wood?
MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:
Yes.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):
But elsewhere in East Hereford or around, there is some logging
going on?
MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:
Yes. but we abide by the regulations. I don't have the
document, I know it's a grey paper, and I heard that lately in St-Malo
they had some logging operations and follow-ups were done, and
everything has to be done according to the rules.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):
Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Cloutier?
MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):
Good evening, Madame.
MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:
Good evening.
MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):
Congratulations for your presentation. This has allowed me to
really appreciate your region and what your organization did to
promote East Hereford. Your document is very well prepared. You're
talking about your concerns about public safety, as others have done
tonight, especially about the emergency response plan.
You're raising a number of issues in this regard. I don't know
whether the members who prepared this document for the foundation has
discussed the role that the result could play if there were to be a
corridor line for a pipeline.
You've asked a number of questions, what I'm asking you tonight
is whether you have come up with some answers to these questions.
MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:
We have quite a hard time finding answers to these questions
because don't forget that we have only three hundred and twenty-five
citizens, and they are overloaded already, these three hundred and
twenty-five people, and it's not sure that they will want to do that
because this means an endless follow-up. I've spoken to younger
people and they're not quite happy about that, they don't want to get
involved.
MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):
You mean about the follow-up of the emergency plan or the
pipeline construction?
MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:
They're not happy with the project, the construction project,
because they know very well that later on they'll be the ones caught
with it, and the people I spoke with are not interested in getting
involved with an emergency response plan.
MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):
Do you feel that small municipalities like yours would find an
advantage in getting together to organize an emergency plan and pool
their resources; do you think this is a realistic avenue?
MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:
The Ministry is trying to merge the municipalities and they're
having problems, so if we're trying to pool emergency services I'm
wondering what problems we'll have to face, and even if the
municipalities were to get together to come up with the emergency
plan, the hospital and the police and securities and health services
won't get closer to our area. Nothing will change, they'll still be
far away.
MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):
Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Thank you, Mrs. Roy-Alain, for your testimony, and thank you for
reminding us, like St-Exupéry said, that the land of our ancestors is
loaned to us for our future generations.
MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:
You're invited to come and take a look at our beautiful
countryside or come back again.
THE CHAIRMAN:
I now invite Mr. Normand Roy, on behalf of the Ferme Piscicole
Des Bobines.
MR. NORMAND ROY:
Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Commissioners. As you can see,
with my brief there's a business card along with it, which says that
the owners of the Ferme Piscicole Des Bobines is Normand Roy and
Doris, who is my wife, and you've got a history back there.
We've been in business since 1976, and we've been with living
water and water is very important for us.
A representative of the firm Poisson Bazinet Associes informed
me, during our first meeting, that the pipeline, the TQM pipeline
project was already accepted. If such is the case why all these
procedures?
Subsequently we had a second meeting with four representatives
of a firm, including a hydrogeologist and an engineer. We discussed
the possibility of contamination of the water table and the
consultation that we already had with the municipality in this regard.
The municipality had, in fact, already advised the firm, the
consulting firm for the TQM project, of the presence of a fish farm in
the village without warning them about the consequences that could
ensue.
Based on the firm's information there's reportedly no problem
because the pipeline does not go near the fish farm.
Ferme Piscicole Des Bobines Incorporated has been in East
Hereford since 1989. We did not select East Hereford by chance. The
firm Foratek Incorporated was mandated by myself to carry out a water
research program. The purpose of the program was to find and update
one or more high flow aquatic environments that would allow for the
operation of a fish farm.
The work done was as follows: visiting of several sites and
selection of an optimum site, preliminary draining campaign to find
out the geological elements of the sectors, transformation of drills,
drilling of a test well, pumping test for seventy-two hours, chemical,
physical and bacteriological analysis of the water and finally a
hydrogeological report.
A preliminary report with Mr. Reynald Dessurault allowed us to
visit several sites that would offer the possibility of operation, and
the choice we made was East Hereford.
Today Ferme Piscicole employs sixty-eight people, depending on
the season, and feels that it is a small business. In addition to
producing the trout and rainbow trout, we also have infrastructures
for the processing of our products into fillets and smoked trout, etc.
These products are sold in Quebec and in the other provinces.
Ferme Piscicole Des Bobines Incorporated is recognized for the quality
of its products and its ability to regularly supply its clientele.
Ferme Piscicole Des Bobines lies within a safety perimeter of
seven hundred and fifty meters from the pipeline. Personnel monitors
it seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day. Often the alarms wake
us up at night.
In addition, we should remember that we work with living
organisms all the time. We cannot be absent for more than two hours.
What would happen in the case of a sudden evacuation of the
population, because, let's face it, the pipeline presents risks of
explosion and consequently a large fire that could cover several acres
of land.
The scope of such a catastrophe would obviously mean evacuation,
but also a loss of electricity. Since electricity and water represent
the basis for the survival of fish, which need to receive oxygen all
the time, we could wind up with a total loss of our inventory in the
event of such a disaster.
After checking on the phone with Mr. Tremblay, of Coop
EnviroTecheau, he told me of several other points to be considered.
The water table is in a very sensitive environment. We should not
tolerate any spillage because acid soil facilitates corrosion more
rapidly. The permeability of the soil in certain areas could be
compromised.
The pipes, at the end of the operation, should be removed from
the soil. He recommends, then, ask for another line so that we do not
cause any prejudice, which is much more than foreseeable - in other
words, not to cause any more prejudice to the business that's already
existing, and the source of revenue depends on the quality and
quantity of the water table.
Why should we change? Why should we live with the insecurity of
such a project, as well as the dangers that it would entail. Why
should we run the risk of trying to contaminate our water table? Why
should we continue fighting and proving to the developer the
responsibilities of such an eventual catastrophe.
Now, after all kinds of questions that have not been answered,
we of the Ferme Piscicole Des Bobines Incorporated will be one of
those suffering the most with these projects.
Even without the monetary advantage, because we don't have
- we are not owner of the land, but because we are upstream from the
Buck stream. Why not develop our natural wealth and use the existing
corridor of the Montreal pipeline? Let's respect the agricultural
zoning law, which calls for the protection of our natural durable and
renewable resources, and hence bequeath a more promising future to our
future generations. Thank you very much for listening.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Roy. If I understand correctly, the pipeline is
not going through your property, but you feel you'll be impacted by
the risk to the water table.
MR. NORMAND ROY:
Yes, because the pipeline runs along a good portion of the Buck
brook, and being upstream from there the flow comes naturally towards
our wells, and during the period of high run-off, for example when the
snow melts or when we have spring rains, the water coming from there
is not a significant part, it's much more significant when we have a
period such as in February and in September.
We use a lot of water. Right now we use four wells, with a
capacity of two thousand, four hundred gallons per minute. That
represents about three times the need, in terms of water, for a
municipality like Coaticook, so it's a lot.
Now, since water is our source of revenue, if there was a
catastrophe or pollution of the water table, then the fish farm -
well, in terms of our production, that could be compromised. Also the
value of the fish farm would go down.
THE CHAIRMAN:
You've referred to an expert evaluation done by Mr. Tremblay of
Coop EnviroTecheau.
MR. NORMAND ROY:
Yes, they replaced Foratek, the firm we had at the beginning,
when we did an expert evaluation to find out the capacity of the water
table at East Hereford. Now it's Mr. Tremblay who is the
hydrogeologist. I contacted Mr. Tremblay following a recommendation
from the hydrogeologist of the firm Poisson Bazinet, who came and met
me, and there were four representatives, because they were - obviously
when you're working on the other side of the table you defend the
interests of those who are going to pay you, obviously.
That's why I called the other person to find out their opinion,
and the opinion is quite different from that of the other
hydrogeologist.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Well, you could have...
MR. NORMAND ROY:
He said his opinions were neutral, regardless who the client
was.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Well, since you're talking about this firm, you said that one of
the representatives of Poisson Bazinet Associés informed me during a
meeting that the TQM project was already accepted.
MR. NORMAND ROY:
Well, the first thing I said was, why are we going through all
these procedures then? He said, 'Well, it's just for form. I mean,
it's just for the hell of it.' It's Mr. Sénécal who told me.
Obviously it's my word against his, but I think I'm quite credible
when it comes to the rest of the population.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Now, what Mr. Tremblay told you, in terms of the risks for your
water supply, do you have a written report on this, or...
MR. NORMAND ROY:
No, I was waiting for him to - well, I was waiting to show up
here for this. Mr. Tremblay would be ready to prepare a report for
me, but for the report to be a detailed report he would have to come
and visit the areas where the pipeline will be located to be able to
evaluate the risks.
He, nevertheless, knows the area because he came here in 1993.
In 1993 we did - we constructed other wells, and Mr. Tremblay knows
the site very well. He doesn't know the exact location of the
pipeline.
This report and his travels, well, we're talking about some
fairly high costs, and that's why I'm wondering if I should invest
such an amount to table a report. Now, perhaps we'll try to
[inaudible] the company - I mean, if I'm forced to invest for problems
that I might have or that I might not have, now if the company wants
to pay for these reports, then we'll go with the reports, but if I
have to spend my own, you know, some few thousand dollars for people
who want to make money...
I mean, I understand them, they're business people, but we've
been forced to spend a lot of energy and time and money to defend
ourselves; it's not fun even.
Now, in the event of a disaster, I mean, all we have to do is
change a little word and it can change the meaning of an entire
sentence, and then I'll be fighting with lawyers, and... I mean,
fighting with lawyers is not interesting because a big company against
a small company, just imagine what that would represent.
THE CHAIRMAN:
I understand your position.
MR. NORMAND ROY:
And also, one of the people who would suffer the most here is
us, given the line that they have. It's a problem that would be very
difficult for us to prove; it will be them, and then it will be a war
until we finally give in, and once we give in we disappear, and the
problem will be gone.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Well, to the extent that your fears with respect to the Buck
spring are objective.
MR. NORMAND ROY:
Yes, let's assume that the pipeline - well, let's say the whole
project stopped and they tell us that the pipes are going to stay
there. If the pipes stay there, one day or another you're going to
have corrosion, perhaps it's not me who is going to suffer from this,
but people who buy the farm or my children, or anybody, whoever takes
over from me.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Thank you very much. Mr. Paré.
MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):
Just to continue from the professional opinion that Mr. Tremblay
issued. You said that he recommends asking for another line so that
it doesn't cause prejudices that can be foreseen. He recommended a
new line because he feels that the present line doesn't offer
sufficient distance from your fish farm?
MR. NORMAND ROY:
It's not so much the distance of the pipes on the fish farm.
It's more rather the way - well, the line runs along the Buck river or
stream, which also feeds other streams by its natural flow.
The material we have for our artesian wells is twenty meters in
depth of gravel, and where the gas line is going to go the water will
come directly to us. Now, if there's any problem on the pipeline, the
problems will go into, flow into the water table, and that's why MR.
Tremblay is saying if these people can go elsewhere, well then you
would eliminate the problems so that you don't wind up with any
prejudice in the future.
That's why he says it will be much simpler if they went
elsewhere, and that's why he recommended that. I know it's not as
simple as that.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Cloutier?
MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):
Good evening. Here you refer to when you did your studies in
1989, you said you visited several sites that offered possibilities of
operation, and you selected East Hereford. Were all the sites in the
East Hereford municipality?
MR. NORMAND ROY:
No, we visited sites in Wedon. We even looked at places outside
of the Eastern Townships, for example in Abitibi. There's large sites
over there. There's [inaudible] over there, but we preferred to come
to East Hereford, because I am from St-Malo, and the fish farm that I
had before - well, I've been in the fish farming business since 1976;
this is my third farm that I started in East Hereford.
The first one I had was in St-Malo and in 1980 I started another
one in Ste-Edwidge, so we wanted to remain within the same region, and
that is why, in this instance, we would have good potential, in terms
of the water at East Hereford, we decided to concentrate our research
here on the site in East Hereford, and it's primarily for that - only
for that reason.
MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):
The other point, it's not really a question, it's just a
comment. The way you described your facility, it would seem that it
is very dependent - in terms of the water quality, it is very
dependent on the usage or activities that we find along the same
watershed as the brook that you talk about, so that makes your
business - well, puts your business in a rather fragile situation;
it's vulnerable not only to a pipeline, but to other kinds of
operations that could affect the quality of your water, which
eventually would affect the quality of water in your wells.
MR. NORMAND ROY:
Right now, with respect to the farming activities, when we built
the wells we also did some chemical analysis of the water, and since
we had christmas tree plantations near the brooks that could affect
the water table, we did research.
We went a little further, in terms of the chemical research, and
we had - there were no chemicals in the water caused by the spring.
Now, in the spring, insecticides or chemicals, well, the soil absorbs
these products very easily.
Also when we have washing by the brooks, it is more what is
underneath the ground that - Look, I'm not an expert in this, I'm just
a producer, I'm not a hydrogeologist, nor a chemist, so, I mean, these
problems - well, this type of research could be done in more detail if
the pipeline is installed.
MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):
I just wanted to point out that your company or your business is
dependent on the usage or activities around the river, and I just want
to point out that the point you raise, that you are within the safety
perimeter of seven hundred and fifty meters, and that you cannot be
absent for more than two hours, this information is quite interesting,
and it's important for us and we're going to consider it. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN:
Thank you very much, Mr. Roy.
MR. NORMAND ROY: