Bureau d'Audiences Publiques sur l'Environnement

 
SÉANCE DU 7 août 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
MOT DU PRÉSIDENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
LE PRÉSIDENT: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1


PRÉSENTATION DES MÉMOIRES:

M. GARY RICHARDS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
MME WINONA TICEHURST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
MME LISELYN ADAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
M. BRUCE MILLER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
M. GEORGES-ÉMILE BOISVERT et Me BERNARD ROY par M. GEORGES-ÉMILE BOISVERT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
MME LUCIE ROY-ALAIN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38
M. GÉRARD BRODEUR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
M. NORMAN BENOIT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
M. MARIUS CLOUTIER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65
MME ROSE BOGO et M. AMALIO ZURI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69
M. GUY FORTIER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75
M. BERNARD LAPOINTE et M. MICHEL CLAIROUX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79

DROIT DE RECTIFICATION:

M. JEAN TRUDELLE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84
M. YVES ROBERT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86
M. JEAN-GUY DÉPôT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87
M. RAYMOND CLOUTIER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89
M. NORMAN BENOIT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90
M. MARIUS CLOUTIER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90
M. ROBERT BOISVERT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91
MME LUCIE ROY-ALAIN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92
MME NICOLE PLANTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93


                            SOIRÉE DU 7 AOûT 1997
                              MOT DU PRÉSIDENT

THE CHAIRMAN:

      Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this session of 
the public hearings of the Commission, which is studying the project 
of the prolongation of the PNGTS pipeline by the company TQM.  I would 
now like to hear from Mr. Gary Richards. 

MR. GARY RICHARDS: 

      Good evening, Mr. Chairman, it has been a while.  As it was 
agreed, I am going to make my presentation this evening in English, 
but, before making my presentation, I would like to invite everybody 
here to come and wander through my garden in Stukely South.  I live on 
the Chemin de la Diligence in Stukely South in a house that was built 
in 1830.  

      And behind my house, just behind my garden, I have two (2) 
existing already rights of way or easements.  The first belongs to 
Hydro Quebec, which was formerly the Southern Canada Power, and the 
second servitude is in favour of TQM, and it has been there since 
1983.  

      If I walk over these two (2) rights of way, which they are 
already a hundred and fifteen (115) feet wide, and I look towards west 
and I see Mount Bromont, I see century old churches, century old 
houses.  And because we call that road the Chemin de la Diligence, 
obviously it is an old historical road.  

      If I look towards the east, I see Mount Orford. And then, I just 
see this corridor a hundred and fifteen (115) feet, but right after 
the existing corridor, the present pipeline proposes that they are 
going to cut away another forty-five (45) feet of mixed forest in 
order to add another pipeline. 

      I know this area very well, Mr. Chairman, because I am a member 
of a forest group since 1980.  I know every bird's nest, every 
falcon's nest, every pond, everything.  I know it like the back of my 
hand.  

      Most of my neighbours on the Diligence Road are all in the same 
boat.  That is to say, our lands, which varies between fifty (50) and 
seventy-five (75) acres, have already been sliced in half already, and 
most of us have some between thirty (30) to fifty (50) acres north of 
the present proposed pipeline.  Now, I'm going to speak into English. 

      The position I am presenting tonight is on behalf of eight (8) 
neighbours, all of whom live side by side, and we are vigorously 
opposing the installation of this proposed pipeline. 

      South Stukely, in this part of the Eastern Townships, is the 
gateway to the MRC Memphremagog.  The land of my neighbour next door, 
Mrs. Aileen Martin, is the western most part of the Memphremagog MRC.  
After that, you are in Shefford County. 

      We hope that this Commission seriously considers our request not 
to put this pipeline in that area.  When I look west of Bromont and I 
looked at the promoter's proposed pipeline, they considered a corridor 
of thirty (30) kilometres.  Suddenly, when you get into the MRC 
Memphremagog, in particular along Chemin de la Diligence, you are 
looking at suddenly an option of four (4) kilometres only, all of 
which is across private land, when there is public land already 
accessible nearby.  And all of the documents I have read, Mr. 
President, indicate to me that the promoter didn't even consider the 
other options available to it. 

      South Stukely is a small tiny village of about seven hundred and 
fifty (750) people. It is a historic village.  Some of the neighbours 
there have been there for a hundred and seventy-five (175) years.  As 
I said earlier, most of the houses have been there for a hundred and 
twenty-five (125) years.  Most people live there in agricultural, 
forestry, and other recreational pursuits. 

      The present pipeline is a severe blow to our current landscapes.  
We have residual effects.  The present pipeline, the residual effects 
are seen daily.  I'll give you an example.  When the pipeline was 
built in 1983, there were virtually no trespassers in any season 
across this landscape.  

      Since the pipeline came into being, you have four (4) seasons 
vehicles in all four (4) seasons.  They are like ants, ant hills.  You 
see them in all seasons going everywhere. It is not only the corridor 
over which they are passing, but they are going into the forest 
trails.  They are everywhere.  We have no peace anymore. 

      Our neighbours, who have cattle in the fields, right up until 
last week, the fences were cut, and the cattle were in the garden, 
simply because people now have the habit of using this land as a 
public artery. 

      Chemin de la Diligence is also one of the most scenic rural 
vistas in the entire Eastern Townships.  I told you earlier about 
looking west towards Bromont, east towards Mount Orford, south towards 
Glen Mountain.  The more the corridors would come in, this would be an 
anti-historical project.  The Diligence was called Diligence, because 
it originally had a stagecoach road on it.  The stagecoach actually 
travelled on that road. 

      I'm also concerned, Mr. Chairman, about the habitat.  The swale 
in that area is very thin.  The drainage is very poor.  There is 
marshy land.  It is a natural habitat for birds and for many other 
animal species.  Now, it is threatened constantly by noises.  It is 
threatened constantly by bulldozers.  

      Hydro Quebec, which owns a servitude next to Gaz Metropolitain, 
has not been a good steward of the land.  Most of the property owners 
have never been informed when maintenance work has been done.  Ponds 
have been sprayed with herbicides, and I can attest to that.  It has 
happened to me.  Small shrubbery, which the servitude allows, has been 
cut over.  You can't even grow anything anymore. 

      In the financial arena, South Stukely has a relatively high tax 
base, because it is located next to Orford/Magog, which is a prime 
recreational area.  Our taxes are very high, and they are increasing, 
because the government is downloading their services, as they are on 
all Quebec municipalities.  

      In addition to that, we are asked to accept a small 
compensation.  And it is not even the compensation that interests us.  
We just don't want the bloody pipeline.  We are asked to support a 
public corporation, a consortium of public corporations, on a project 
for which they will make money on land, for which we will increasingly 
pay greater taxes. It just doesn't make any sense at all. 

      Our neighbours have been invited to accept amounts of 
compensation between three thousand ($3,000.00) and twenty thousand 
dollars ($20,000.00), but the point is no one wants it.  

      A local newspaper, the other day, said that eighty percent (80%) 
of the people wanted the pipeline.  What they meant was that most of 
us act in good faith, "de bonne foi".  We were totally misled with the 
first pipeline negotiation.  If we had ever thought for one minute 
that this was going to open up a second and a third and more 
corridors, we would have had to be crazy to accept the first one.  

      So, in good faith, we accepted the first one, thinking it was 
going to serve the greater economic good.  And then, the rationale for 
putting another one in is because one exists already.  So, we have 
been set up and clobbered because of that, and I don't feel it is 
right. 

      Now, the land use of this land is very important to all of us.  
We farm it.  We have wood lot managements.  We have recreational 
pursuits.  And now, in certain times of the year, as I said before, it 
is virtually unsafe to even walk across the bloody land.  You have to 
kick off trail bikes.  You have to kick off hunters with walkie-
talkies.  And it is just not feasible for us anymore. 

      Another issue is the issue of private versus public ownership of 
land.  Why should we, all of our neighbours, who pay taxes on this 
land, see it depreciate in value, pay increasing taxes on this land, 
why should we be the corridor for a public consortium that wants to 
simply make money, when already expropriated land exists nearby, as I 
have said before?  It doesn't make sense. 

      The strategy appears, in the pipeline negotiations, to be divide 
and conquer.  Some people, who were negotiated with three (3) months 
ago, said they never signed.  And suddenly, last week, they signed, 
because they were told:  Well, it is inevitable anyways. You might as 
well sign.  I don't like that.  We are asked to be partners in a major 
project. Yet, most of us didn't have the courtesy to be consulted as 
major partners.  It makes me very, very suspicious. 

      Another issue is what I call stewardship of the land.  I think, 
in French, you would say "l'intendance saine de la terre", how you 
look after the land after it is over, in other words, the residual 
effects.  

      The land is changing.  I have, on my land right next to where 
the blasting took place, a major fissure in a rock formation.  My 
fireplace behind my house, which is about six hundred (600) feet away 
from the blasting, has cracked twice.  It hasn't cracked twice by 
accident.  I mean if it didn't crack in a hundred and thirty (130) 
years, I don't see why it has cracked twice in the last few years. 

      Also with the stewardship of the land is how big companies, by 
subcontracting, come in every year or two (2) and just clean 
everything out, because they don't want any problems.  When a man from 
the company visited my land with me a few weeks ago, I showed him all 
the lupines and some of the other flora that I planted over the 
pipeline. And I had shown him where this had been bulldozed, because 
they wanted to clean it out again.  And he said, "You are right.  We 
should not say that you can plant shallow-rooted things, when, in 
fact, we discourage it, because we just clean it out".  

      The only things that these pipelines are useful for are hay 
fields, hay fields already in use, because I mean hay is hay.  You cut 
it every year regardless of where it is, in whatever open field. 

      I am not very happy with any of this.  As a private citizen who 
works for his own company, I feel that my rights are trampled on all 
the time.  It is a tremendous amount of effort to come all the time 
with another brief, be in touch with everyone, because we have our own 
daily lives to conduct.  

      And I just hope that you read the contents of this brief, and 
that you see how carefully it has been constructed by the eight (8) 
neighbours.  It includes people whose families have been there for two 
(2) centuries, people whose families have been there for twenty-five 
(25) years, people who are four (4) seasons people, people who are 
farmers. All of us are from all walks of life. 

      That's all I have to say.  I do not want that pipeline for any 
reason whatsoever, and no amount of compensation in the world can 
compensate for the loss.  You see, it is anti-history.  It is anti our 
ancestors to put that pipeline in the area the company is proposing to 
put it.  You are going to deface the landscape forever.  We are in a 
rich tourism zone, and this is a rich historical zone, where the first 
settlers moved into this area.  It is socially indecent to try and 
carve this up. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Thank you, Mr. Richards, you can be sure that the Commission 
will examine your brief with great attention and read it in detail.  
Thank you for having presented it.  It is obvious to us that it was 
prepared with great care, and that each paragraph has been well 
structured and well thought out.  

      If, according to your appreciation, you had been treated as a 
partner by the promoter, would your opinion of this project be 
different? 

MR. GARY RICHARDS: 

      My opinion, in the end, no, it wouldn't be different.  As a good 
partner, I would have argued and would have felt obligated to suggest 
some other alternative, but it wouldn't have changed my opinion in the 
end.  That's true. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      Mr. Richards, in your brief, you said at a certain point you 
deplore the lack of evaluation of the impact on water.  You said 
"Étude publique et objective concernant les niveaux de tables d'eau 
devrait être requise".  What you are saying is that what was found in 
the promoter's study, environmental impact study, was not sufficient? 

MR. GARY RICHARDS: 

      Not at all sufficient, the evaluation which has been done by the 
promoter is much too superficial.  We have a chronic problem with our 
water table in Stukely South.  There are even certain places, where 
the first pipeline went through, that just the dynamiting work in 
those areas changed the water tables for people who make private use 
of it, but this whole region, given that there is a mine, enormous 
mine at Stukely South, somebody responsible has to do a really in-
depth research and evaluation on the whole - toute la question de la 
nappe phréatique de la région. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      Secondly, you talk about the environmental considerations and 
refer to the Gaz Metropolitain pipeline which presently exists, the 
first pipeline.  "Plus que toute autre chose, vous avez indiqué que le 
premier projet de pipeline a changé la forme du paysage lui-même et 
que ça c'est évident pour n'importe qui qui se donne la peine 
d'observer le temps".  I would like you to tell us exactly what you 
have observed as changes in the micro landscape, and do these changes 
happen at the time of construction, or were they progressive changes 
over the years? 

MR. GARY RICHARDS: 

      I'm almost an expert in this subject, because almost three 
hundred and sixty-five (365) days a year I walk, whether it be on 
snowshoes in the winter or in rubber boots in the summer, with my 
dogs.  I have noticed an enormous new fissure, which appeared two (2) 
years ago between the existing pipeline and the Hydro Quebec corridor.  

      And for the last two (2) years, when I walk there where the 
present pipeline is, it goes "tock, tock, tock".  I am convinced that 
there is something empty underneath my feet.  And because of the marks 
left by the four-wheel vehicle and the perpetual uprooting of this, we 
can't plant anything, contrary to what the company told us, and these 
fissures are getting bigger and bigger.  So, I can see the changes in 
the contours of the landscape. 

      Last year, I looked at Bromont towards the west one evening, 
towards the ski slopes.  And before the trees started growing leaves, 
in the winter, the land was different. The land was sort of coming 
down.  It really does change the landscape.  And I am there almost 
every day.  I feel this.  I see this. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      Good evening, Mr. Richards, you mentioned a little while ago 
that if, in 1983, you had known that the Gaz Metropolitain pipeline 
that was built would lead to the cutting of another corridor, you 
never would have accepted, in 1983, the construction of the Gaz 
Metropolitain pipeline. 

      In the study mentioned, it is indicated that the criteria for 
the localization dated from 1982.  And amongst these criteria, it was 
mentioned that we should encourage the building of new infrastructures 
within existing rights of way.  In 1982, were you aware of this 
criteria, that this criteria was going to be used at that time? 

MR. GARY RICHARDS: 

      Absolutely, if you are asking me the question, if I understand 
properly, what you are asking me is whether somebody informed us at 
that time that they were perhaps going to build other ones in the 
future at the same place.  Never, never, never, never, I am sure of 
that.  I have none of my neighbours was ever informed that there would 
perhaps be other rights of way or servitudes at the same place.  And I 
can affirm never, never.  

      It is something which belongs to everybody, whether they be at 
Lachenaie or East Hereford.  Generally, the citizens act in good 
faith.  We don't want to bother anybody. We want to help with general 
public needs.  

      But if somebody had told me that there was going to be another 
one and then probably another one, I would have never accepted at the 
time.  The only thing that I would have perhaps accepted was if there 
was going to be a second one built in-between the two (2) existing 
ones:  the Hydro Quebec servitude and the one that presently exists of 
Metropolitain Gaz.  And I even mentioned this at some kind of meeting.  
I don't remember exactly when, but there was never a question of that.  
So, for me, the debate is over permanently. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      But when the project was carried out in 1983, did you ask at 
that time what were the criteria which determined that the pipeline 
went over your land at that time? 

MR. GARY RICHARDS: 

      Probably, yes, but I was in such good faith at that time or so 
innocent.  I thought it was a one-shot deal.  It was one time for the 
public good, and that was it.  We were just going to live with two (2) 
corridors rather than one (1).  I think that in 1983... 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      Were people advised that it was the first one of a series? 




MR. GARY RICHARDS: 

      I don't know whether people were advised there, but I just 
wondered, when the pipeline was built in 1983, if the criteria of 
localization, that is to say the fact of the arrival of another 
pipeline, would then make it more likely or favourable that a second 
one would be built in the same place. 

      As well, you have to be aware that at that time, in 1982, we 
were not all connected to Internet.  The science of pipelines was not 
something that people were well aware of in our region.  It was a 
pioneer projet here in the Eastern Townships.  And I think we all 
accepted it in good faith.  Certain of the neighbours were more 
recalcitrant than others, and they were more demanding or exacting.  
And I realize now that they were right to be so, but now we are little 
bit more sophisticated.  It is finished.  That time is over. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      Mr. Richards, just for a bit of additional information 
concerning an answer that you have just given, if the new pipeline 
could be built in the same right of way that is already going through 
over your property, would it be more acceptable in that case? 

MR. GARY RICHARDS: 

      No, no, because I have observed everything.  The residual 
effects of the first pipeline built and the residual effects of a 
pipeline between an existing pipeline and the Hydro Quebec servitude 
would be disaster.  It is full, full of stones.  It is impossible.  At 
the same time, why are they coming back and bothering me with this 
again?  We end up getting a bit angry.  It is a flagrant imposition on 
us, even when people want to be good citizens.  Why are they always 
imposing on us?  There is no way.  There is absolutely no way.  You 
could offer me all the money in the world, and I will not leave any 
stone unturned, any legal means unexploited, not to stop it. 


THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Thank you very much, Mr. Richards, for your testimony.  Now, I 
would like to call Miss Winona Ticehurst.  We are listening to you. 

MRS. WINONA TICEHURST: 

      I am going to speak from experience that has been very negative 
to our families, and we are property owners of two (2) large pieces of 
property.  So, I will read first.  I am sure you gentlemen have the 
copies.  I left them here with you people last night.  I left seven 
(7) copies. 

      (Reading her brief) 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Thank you very much for your presentation, the Commission 
understands the passion that comes from your heart based on the 
experience.  So, thank you very much for your presentation.  I 
understand the passion you have and that comes from your heart based 
on the experiences that your family has endured.  Your testimony will 
be taken into consideration, you can rest assured.  Mr. Paré has a 
question for you. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      I would like you to give us more precisely the area where is 
your property.  I understand it is in the area where Chemin Miletta 
and Canadian Pacific's right of way pass near the Autoroute 10? 

MRS. WINONA TICEHURST: 

      Lines, etc., etc., the Eastern Township Autoroute was built on 
our property.  Exit 115 comes off at the end of it.  The Ranch of 
Spaghetti was a part of our property, which was sold.  And it 
stretches from there on overward toward Orford Lake.  It is 
approximately two (2) miles, and the land is interrupted only by Mr. 
Lapalme, the two (2) properties. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      Okay, I think we have it therefore in this atlas.  Secondly, I 
wanted to ask you, generally speaking, in what years the various, 
quite dramatic indeed, experiences you referred to happened.  Like the 
first set of power lines, do you remember about in what year that 
happened, and the same thing for Autoroute 10? 

MRS. WINONA TICEHURST: 

      I remember after that it happened that my father suffered 
stressfully, and had sort of nervous breakdown from it.  And I was 
probably in about a Grade 6 or so.  And generally speaking, I don't 
give out my age, but it was a time that I remember quite well, and it 
goes back to the time of the Southern Canada Power.  So, I would say 
it is probably in the 1950's, but I am sure that you could look it up 
or punch it out on a computer somewhere and get the exact dates. 



MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      As for the Autoroute, are you referring to the Autoroute right 
now or to the power line? 

MRS. WINONA TICEHURST: 

      No, you were referring to the hydro lines of Southern Canada 
Power. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      Yes. 

MRS. WINONA TICEHURST: 

      Now, you want the Autoroute? 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      Please. 

MRS. WINONA TICEHURST: 

      The Autoroute opened for Expo '67.  And, therefore, its 
construction, you will have to back that up a little bit to about 
1965, in that area. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      The mid 1960's. 

MRS. WINONA TICEHURST: 

      I didn't bother to look up the exact.  I know it opened for 
1967, because it opened for Expo. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      Well, at that time, I worked at the Camp de Jeunesse Musicale in 
Mount Orford, and I remember that it was the mid 1960's, so, okay.  
You refer at the end of your presentation to the fact that "we have 
plans to develop our land in a similar fashion".  Do you have real 
estate development projects for your land?  Is that what we should 
understand? 

MRS. WINONA TICEHURST: 

      What you should understand, Mr. Paré, is that because of the 
high level of tourism in our area, and because of the location of our 
property and the beauty of the area, that one should always have plans 
of how they would develop it in concert with the high level of tourism 
of the area.  This is a tourist area.  So, anyone holding onto 
property naturally will think in that line, because we must fit in to 
what the main industry of this town is, which is, of course, tourism.  

      Do we have plans on how to develop it?  Yes, absolutely, our 
property on Chagnon Mountain, my father's property in my father's 
name, is absolutely beautiful.  Standing on top of it, you can see the 
whole countryside.  In fact, the property runs from there and up Mount 
Orford.  We are one (1) of two (2) people that still own property on 
Mount Orford.  It is not all park land.  

      Our property is beautiful, overlooking it.  There is a 
development on one side of it, and a development of homes on the other 
side of it, and it is the only piece not developed.  Our family have 
plans to develop it or to sell it to someone who plans to develop it, 
a wonderful spot for a home.  Our own farm, yes, there have always 
been plans that we should develop.  

      In fact, at this moment, should you look at my hands, you will 
see that I have still the mark of paint, which I have been doing all 
day.  We have a very large home that I plan, upon my - I will be 
inheriting, and I plan on turning it, when I retire from teaching, 
which is in a year from now, I plan on turning it into either an inn 
or a bed and breakfast. Those plans are relatively solid, because it 
is a seven (7) bedroom house and an eighteen (18) room house, far too 
big for my husband and I to chase one another around in.  I plan on 
having it enjoyed in that fashion.  Yes, those plans are quite solid 
in my mind. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      Do you know if your property or part of it is what we call 
either the green zone or white zone? 

MRS. WINONA TICEHURST: 

      Yes, it is white zone. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      It's white.  Therefore, it can... 

MRS. WINONA TICEHURST: 

      Oh, yes. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      Thank you. 

MRS. WINONA TICEHURST: 

      The other gas pipeline tried to convince us it was green at 
first. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Mr. Cloutier. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      I just would like to, well, first of all, wish you - we are 
happy to see you tonight. I just want to say that your presentation 
was a very passionate testimony --

MRS. WINONA TICEHURST: 

      Yes, thank you. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      Of the evolution of development in the Eastern Townships in 
general, and very specifically regarding your land, and the impacts 
that these infrastructures had on your family.  It was very 
interesting, and we appreciate that you provided us with that 
information.  Thank you. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Thank you, Ma'am; I call Liselyn Adams. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Okay, Miss Adams. 



MRS. LISELYN ADAMS: 

      I have a brief, and I have a few other comments to add. 

      (Reading her brief) 

      I want to talk a little bit more about the learning of history 
and the learning of nature in this way that I see is very important 
for my child and was very important for myself as a young person. 

      It takes a really long time for things to happen in a forest.  
It is very slow, normally.  And the small things that happen very 
slowly, I think that kind of education of observing those things, of 
being sensitive to those things, makes a person very different than a 
person who is going, you know, learning these things from half-hour 
specials on television.  

      And I think that even just taking a small part of our land away 
from that kind of unmanaged development, even taking away part of it, 
it just doesn't work.  It doesn't feel right to me at all; and the 
history of our planet, not history by learning the history of human 
beings, but learning the history of all the other things that are on 
this place, too. 

      We were thrilled in 1990, or whenever it was, that a Hydro line 
that had gone through our land was removed.  We were so glad.  The 
right of way had not been cut for at least four (4) or five (5) years 
before that.  So, it had already started to return to its forest 
condition, and has continued to, and I hope it will be able to 
continue. 

      We are soon adopting a child from Cambodia.  This child will 
have lived in a strange combination of violence and unnatural agrarian 
environment.  And I am really hoping that we don't have, you know, the 
fear of, you know, hearing these helicopters go by or other things, 
you know, at least right of way, for the first while, and that this 
very peaceful place that we live where, as I have said, we walk to in 
the winter, will be heal a child who may be fairly damaged. 

      If you have any questions, I will be happy to answer them. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Thank you for your presentation, which appeals to values that we 
have not heard a great deal about during these hearings.  You are 
speaking on behalf of children, and also that it is rather rare that 
we have heard of children during these hearings.  What you have said 
and the values that you have referred to concern or apply to all 
children, who are affected directly or indirectly, even if they are 
not in the kind of sheltered environment. 

MRS. LISELYN ADAMS: 

      No, I can't say that I'm talking for all the children that are 
affected, but for certain children who will be affected, because I 
know other people who have children as well, in the pipeline region, 
not necessarily on the properties, are going to be directly affected, 
but even neighbouring or bordering properties, where they are going to 
see the big trench in the mountain.  They are going to hear the 
helicopters or where the construction is going to be disruptive.  

      We can't avoid that in life.  I don't want to say that we can 
always avoid it, but if we choose to move as far away as possible from 
that kind of thing by living here, at the same time I think it is 
important that it should only be imposed on us when it is absolutely 
necessary.  And if it requires extra effort on the part of the 
developers to go further away in more remote less inhabited areas, I 
think that they should have to do it. It's worthwhile. 


THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Thank you very much for your presentation; Mr. Miller, we are 
listening to you. 

MR. BRUCE MILLER: 

      Thank you, Mr. President, my memoire is rather lengthy.  So, I 
will read some excerpts from it.  I will try to summarize it at the 
end, and then I have a few comments to make.  Concerning the project 
itself, my memoire makes four (4) points.  

      The first point is that the PNGTS extension is one of very many 
projects, which are currently being proposed to bring natural gas to 
New England, and that I believe that the PNGTS extension should be 
looked at within the context of those other projects, not just by 
itself. 

      My second point is that as a stand-alone project whose aim is to 
export western Canadian gas to New England, that, the PNGTS extension, 
its main justification makes little sense in light of the developing 
Canadian gas reserves in Sable Island and Hibernia, and that's chiefly 
because of the distances involved in the transport of the gas. 

      My third point is that the PNGTS extension is also and 
represented as one element of a hub concept by the promoters, and this 
is a strategy to become the hub of natural gas and electrical energy 
for northeast America.  And I don't believe that this is a good 
scenario for the interests of Quebec society. 

      And my fourth point is that, the PNGTS extension, the promoters 
have supplied a secondary justification, and that is to service new 
Quebec markets and bolster existing ones in the Eastern Townships.  
And I feel this is a very, very weak attempt to justify their project 
domestically.  I don't feel that this project is necessary at this 
time in Quebec. 

      Concerning the stand-alone version of the PNGTS extension, the 
promoters represent the PNGTS extension as a stand-alone, self-
sufficient project, whose primary justification is the maintenance of 
exports of western Canadian gas to New England. Considering the nearby 
reserves of natural gas being developed at Sable Island and Hibernia, 
how can the stand-alone PNGTS extension transport western gas to New 
England on a competitive basis?  Are there any companies looking to 
transport gas from Sable Island and Hibernia to the American northwest 
to, say, Seattle, Washington?  It doesn't make sense. 

      There is a table in my memorandum that represents the total 
length of three (3) different projects.  

      The length of the Trans Canadian Pipeline, TQM, and PNGTS 
system, which would take gas from western Canada to Portland would be 
- and this is a very conservative estimate.  It would be three 
thousand eighty (3,080) kilometres.  

      The M & NE project, which is slated to - is proposed, I should 
say, to take gas, transport gas, from Sable Island to Portland would 
have a length of five hundred and fifty-eight (558) kilometres.  

      The Tatham Off Shore project would have an overall length of 
four hundred and forty (440) kilometres.  

      So, by that table, we can see that the TQM proposal would be 
five and a half (5 1/2) times the distance of the M & NE project, and it 
would be seven (7) times the distance necessary to transport gas via 
the Tatham Off Shore project.  How could they compete economically 
when they were transporting their gas seven (7) times the distance? 

      Last night, Mr. Flumerfelt said that he thought that this 
project was complementary to the other projects.  He didn't feel that 
they were in competition with the other projects, and I think that 
statement is laughable. 

      Concerning the hub concept of the PNGTS extension, when the 
promoters of this project describe the benefits of the PNGTS extension 
project, they factored in the Sable Island pipeline project for which 
they have applied.  In the comprehensive policy statement read by Mme. 
Sylvie Brochu, the promoters claim that Quebec, as a society, has 
adopted an energy policy of which this project is part and parcel.  

      Have Quebecers really decided that they want a large provincial 
energy monopoly like Hydro Quebec aggressively expanding into gas 
energy, and burying natural gas pipelines by the thousand kilometres 
around "la belle province" in order to become gate keepers for natural 
resources not even theirs?  I don't remember Quebec society deciding 
that. 

      And there are members of our society who are more learned than 
I, who feel that this is not in the best interests of our society.  I 
have attached a copy of Université of Laval's Professor Jean Thomas 
Bernard, an article in which he concludes that a single electricity 
and gas monopoly provides none of the benefits to Quebec consumers 
that it can in the United States, but it has the potential for all the 
disadvantages of such an arrangement. 

      The promoters claim that their hub concept would provide a more 
secure supply and lower prices to Quebec consumers by providing two 
(2) sources of gas.  Even if this dubious claim could be 
substantiated, the promoters should be reminded that it is their Sable 
Island project, not the PNGTS extension project, which would bring 
Sable Island gas to Quebecers. 

      Concerning the secondary justification of this project, the 
benefits to Quebec, while the New England natural gas markets have at 
least been demonstrated to be real, the promoters have offered no hard 
evidence for what they claim to be vital markets in the Eastern 
Townships of Quebec.  

      Look at the promoters' examples of Magnola and J. B. Asbestos as 
potential markets, for which PNGTS extension would be needed.  The 
location of these two (2) facilities, Asbestos, is literally 
surrounded by gas.  Clockwise, there is Drummondville, Victoriaville, 
East Angus, and Windsor, all served by the existing Gaz Metropolitain 
network in as little as twenty-two (22) kilometres away from Asbestos.  

      For another example, consider the Coaticook market.  The 
promoters brought up the Coaticook market ten (10) times during the 
hearings.  Jean Trudelle claimed that its loss would be one (1) of two 
(2) factors which could create a major impact on Gaz Metropolitain, 
should the PNGTS extension be cancelled.  Nevertheless, Mr. Trudelle 
was at a complete loss to name so much as one (1) single company with 
whom discussions have been held, much less demonstrate a pent-up 
demand for natural gas in Coaticook. 

      If the promoters can truly demonstrate the necessity of a nine 
hundred and ten (910) millimetre pipeline to service St-Basile-le-
Grand, St-Hyacinthe, Drummondville, Victoriaville, Asbestos, Windsor, 
Thetford Mines, East Angus, and other centres in the northern 
industrial belt of the Eastern Townships, they have only to look at a 
roadmap of Quebec to see where to put it.  I have included such a map 
in my memorandum. 

      The southern part of the Eastern Townships is overwhelmingly 
touristic, recreational, and agricultural.  It is not an area of 
expansive industrial development.  An industrial development project 
like this pipeline that would forever change the landscape of Quebec's 
premier green zone is unneeded and unwelcome. 

      The second section of my memorandum deals with the Quebec 
corridor, and there are three (3) points concerning that. 

      Number 1 point is the promoters of the PNGTS extension committed 
a grave and fundamental error in not closely coordinating with PNGTS 
in designing an overall corridor for the two (2) projects.  From a 
Quebec point of view, the revised choice of the PNGTS extension's 
ending point was arbitrary.  It was established solely for American 
convenience.  No advance consideration was given either by the 
American or Canadian promoters to the impact of a revised route on 
Quebec soil. 

      My second point is that once burdened with such an arbitrary 
ending point, the Canadian promoters designed an inflexible route 
within a narrow corridor, which was bound to be problematic on the 
choice of the border crossing.  The promoters nominate a method of 
routing determination which begins with a starting point and an ending 
point, and then locates a route which best satisfies the applicable 
criteria: environmental, socio-economic.  

      However, in the case of the PNGTS extension and PNGTS, the 
paradigm should have been modified to include a third point:  the 
border crossing between Quebec and the United States.  The border 
crossing is the most critical, because while Lachenaie and Portland 
are givens which are fixed, the border crossing is moveable or it was 
moveable. Although once fixed, it becomes a fixed point from two (2) 
perspectives:  the American and the Canadian. 

      One would think that the decision on locating the border 
crossing would have been the subject of considerable discussion among 
the Canadian and American promoters, especially considering the 
opportunity afforded by their interlocking Boards of Directors. There 
was certainly time.  The promoters have told us that this project has 
been on the planning boards for five (5) years.  It is the sort of 
negligence that this was not done, this coordination. 

      Two (2) completely separate teams, PNGTS and TQM, working 
independently of each other, no substantial consultations about the 
effects of each other's work upon the other, is this the same TQM that 
says they will responsibly coordinate an effective emergency response 
program among forty (40) municipalities? 

      We have seen how the border crossing was changed.  The next 
question is:  Why was the border crossing changed?  Mr. Flumerfelt 
gave two (2) reasons.  Number 1, they were closer to perspective 
clients in New Hampshire.  Number 2, there was a lower environmental 
impact on the new route compared to the original one, which was 
parallel to the existing Portland/Montreal pipeline. 

      With respect to the perspective clients in New Hampshire, Jean 
Trudelle said the PNGTS told him that they moved the border crossing 
in order to get closer to Waussau Paper in Groveton, New Hampshire.  
Now, the amended PNGTS application to FERC of May 30th, 1997, states 
that there are three (3) laterals on the new route:  the Groveton 
lateral, seven-tenths of a mile; the Rumford lateral, twenty-seven 
(27) miles approximately; the Jay lateral, sixteen (16) miles.  

      The Rumford and Jay laterals are unchanged between the original 
PNGTS route and the amended route.  A lateral to Groveton from the 
original PNGTS route, the Portland/Montreal pipeline route, would have 
been about eleven (11) miles.  From the new route, Groveton is seven-
tenths of a mile.  Should we understand from this that eighty-five 
(85) kilometres of six hundred and ten (610) millimetre pipe were 
added to the Canadian route in order to save ten point three (10.3) 
miles of eight (8) inch lateral in Groveton, New Hampshire?  The 
notion is absurd. 

      Concerning the proposed Quebec corridor, after the promoters of 
the PNGTS extension blindly accepted the East Hereford border 
crossing, an American convenience, they compounded their first error 
by making a poor-choice corridor in Quebec.  The promoters say they 
want to serve clients in Quebec with the PNGTS extension.  Although 
nearly all of those clients are in a band along the northern part of 
the Eastern Townships, the promoters selected a corridor here, but I 
have provided in my memoire to the Commission two (2) alternative 
Quebec corridors and the justifications for them. 

      The third section of my memoire deals with a visual impact of 
pipeline projects, and particularly with concern to the Eastern 
Townships.  It is all very well and good to speak, as the promoters 
did, of limiting the perspective of the pipeline in one small area of 
an autoroute, where cars are passing at a hundred and forty (140) 
kilometres an hour, but, at the same time, we must think about the 
impact of more than one hundred (100) kilometres of pipeline running 
up and down the green hills of the Eastern Townships and of their 
visibility for kilometres around.  

      Because they are linear, pipelines create a high visual impact.  
Their visual impact is heightened by routing them through hilly and 
mountainous terrain such as that found in touristic and recreational 
regions of the Memphremagog and Coaticook MRC's.  

      They are more visible when they are on mountains than they are 
when they are on flat land.  If they are on the flat, you see them 
only when you are looking down the corridor.  If they are going up and 
down on hills, we can see them from miles away. Where that cut will go 
down the Bunker Hill is visible from many, many places at great 
distances.  The western side of the Bunker Hill, the cut would be very 
visible from Mount Orford, for example.  I give examples of this in my 
memorandum. 

      Mr. Trudelle claims that the visual impact of the pipelines is 
less than that of Hydro Quebec, the Hydro Quebec grid, but 
notwithstanding the invisibility of the pipeline itself, we could 
anticipate that the visual impact of its right of way would be more 
pronounced than the old Hydro lines themselves.  

      The reasons for this are the pipeline rights of way are clear 
cut at more frequent intervals than those of Hydro electricity lines.  
They have to be cut every two (2) years. They don't have a chance to 
even grow back partially.  

      The other reason, which is also of major environmental negative 
impact, is that when a pipeline route is constructed, it is flattened.  
All of the micro terrain is removed. This makes a land look unnatural, 
and it also contributes to many problems including erosion, and I 
cover those in other parts of my memorandum.  And as well, I mention 
the fact that because the pipeline in the Eastern Township is going up 
and down hills, it is another reason why it will have a greater 
impact. 

      To summarize that section of my memoire, the corridor selected 
by the promoters takes the pipeline across one hundred (100) 
kilometres of an area whose geographical features bestow upon it 
exceptional grace and natural beauty.  While the promoters are always 
interested in cultivating an image of an enlightened concern about the 
negative impacts of their projects, their actions speak louder than 
their words.  

      The promoters have demonstrated insufficient commitment and 
responsibility toward the preservation of the scenic nature of the 
Eastern Townships.  Their project would deface land possessed of great 
aesthetic value, spoil and detract from other future opportunities for 
more aesthetic and economically sustainable development in our region, 
devalue prime real estate, and be in opposition with the principal 
development goals of the recreational and touristic region through 
which they pass. 

      There is a section in my memoire dealing with company 
credibility.  Judging from citizens' expressions of concerns at TQM 
public information meetings, as well as those from municipalities, 
MRC's, and environmental groups, the promoters must have been aware 
from the very beginning that there was considerable opposition to the 
route taken by the PNGTS extension, particularly from Stukely Sud to 
Ayer's Cliff and the East Hereford region.  Instead of honestly 
addressing the concerns of citizens, the promoters attempted to 
minimize them and deny the existence of opposition.  

      To see how disingenuous the promoters can be, see section 9, the 
conclusion to the summary of the early public notification program, a 
document deposited with the National Energy Board on the 24th of 
March, 1997.  Here, the promoters state that there is little 
opposition to the PNGTS extension apart from two (2) individuals. 

      Those are some of the points in my memoire.  I cannot cover them 
all here.  I don't wish to take the Commission's time, but they are in 
writing for you to consider.  I have a few brief comments concerning 
what I have learned during this BAPE process.  

      I should begin by I want to offer an apology to Mr. Flumerfelt 
and to the Commission for one of the statements I made last night 
during the correction segment. At that time, I said that, in East 
Hereford, Mr. Flumerfelt used the word "accidental" to describe 
PNGTS's determination of what they feel is a lower impact route in New 
Hampshire.  

      I looked at the verbatim last night.  In reality, the word used 
by Mr. Flumerfelt was discovered, not accidental.  And I regret having 
made that error, and I do offer my apologies both to the Commission 
and Mr. Flumerfelt.  I hope the Commissioners understand that, like 
the other land owners involved in this, I am new to this, and we do 
make mistakes. 

      The subject of progress has come up many times over the last 
several evenings, and I wanted to say that, like all the other 
interveners which I have heard, I am not against progress, but neither 
am I automatically for it, because many things that are represented as 
progress are not progress.  The delivery of natural gas to New England 
may indeed represent progress, but it is not necessarily a corollary 
that the PNGTS extension is progress. 

      I had a brief comment concerning compensation.  Many people have 
talked about compensation.  I did not talk about it in my brief, 
because I am not really concerned that much by compensation.  There is 
no compensation for me or my wife.  Promoters say that compensation is 
based on comparable market values, and I wanted to say that, for our 
land, there are no comparable market values.  

      We live on the colline Bunker, which is an exceptional forest 
ecosystem.  We have developed our land in a special and unique way, 
which fully respects this characteristic, and there are simply no 
other markets in our area which reflect this value. 

      Another point I wanted to touch upon was multiple corridors.  
The question of multiple corridors or multiple rights of way within a 
corridor is one which has occupied a prominent position in the current 
debate about pipelines.  There are complex and difficult questions, 
whose answers must seek to balance the principles of minimizing 
environmental impacts and, on the other hand, the rights of 
individuals to enjoy the use of their property.  

      I know that the Commissioners will have to consider this 
question, as they determine their recommendations to the Minister of 
the Environment, and I would like to add my opinion about this. 

      I do not think that regulations, by themselves, can provide the 
answer.  I mean that I do not think that we can say that, well, five 
(5) is too many; five (5) is not too many, but six (6) is.  I don't 
think we can do it strictly on a numerical basis.  I think the answer 
needs to be determined on a case-by-case basis.  Just as every person 
is different, so is every tree and every piece of land.  And I think 
also that the social factors need to be considered very importantly, 
when determining this consideration of multiple rights of way in a 
corridor. 

      Mr. President, while interviewing an intervener in Coaticook, 
you proposed the idea that perhaps a ski area could be considered a 
scar, if you recall.  In my mind, a ski area absolutely is a scar.  
And were it not for the fact that it is a short scar instead of a very 
long scar, it might even be a worse scar than a pipeline route. 

      However, as the Commission heard last night during the 
presentation by the Memphremagog MRC, the chief industry of this MRC 
is tourism and recreation.  So, we might see ski areas as industrial 
scars.  Now, while these touristic recreational industrial scars have 
been imposed upon the MRC of Memphremagog, this MRC and its 
populations have also benefited enormously from the economic fall-out 
that accompanies them. 

      On the other hand, if there are other MRC's whose industries 
fall more into the realm of extraction, paper production, fabrication, 
things like that, more traditional industry, and those industries 
require natural gas as an energy source, why should they not, in 
addition to enjoying the economic benefits of those industries, also 
endure the negative impacts that accompany those industries, i.e. the 
pipeline which would be required to supply their needed energy? 

      And by the same token, why should the recreational and touristic 
industries of our MRC be devalued and placed at risk by impregnating 
it by a pipeline, the benefits of which would accrue to another region 
whose planners had made their decision to accept a different kind of 
development? 

      And I would like to amplify for a moment on what I mean by our 
recreational and touristic industries being placed at risk.  I am 
pretty sure that, on the 25th of June, when Mr. Trudelle was trying to 
put a perspective on the issue of safety, he really did mean to say 
that, to date, there have been no deaths or ruptures of TCPL pipelines 
in the Province of Quebec.  

      We know, of course, that these types of incidents have occurred 
elsewhere, but apparently there have not been any in our province.  
However, is there anyone in this room that thinks that these types of 
incidents will never happen in Quebec, that our province somehow 
enjoys an imperviousness to these types of accidents? 

      Imagine the potential environmental damage from a catastrophic 
pipeline accident in our MRC, damage to our lakes, and rivers, and 
streams, our mountains, and our forests.  And who would ever want to 
create in the public's mind a link between our touristic and 
recreational region and a gas pipeline accident? 

      I'm almost finished.  And to return for a moment, Mr. Genest, to 
your example of the ski area as a scar, you asked of the intervener in 
Coaticook if the amount of wounding was not a matter of perception.  
And here I agree wholeheartedly with you that the amount of wounding 
is a matter of perception, but here I would also like to make what I 
feel is an extremely important point.  And if I offend anyone by my 
next statement, please let me apologize in advance.  

      Without intending any disrespect or prejudice, I note that, 
apart from the rural land owners who are affected, most of the people 
involved in these hearings, including the Commission and the 
promoters, are people who come from an urban environment.  The only 
point I wish to make out of this is that, quite naturally, people who 
live in the city and people who live in the country develop different 
sensitivities to their respective environments. 

      I would ask the Commissioners, in their deliberations, insomuch 
as they are able to, to consider the sensitivities and perceptions of 
the inhabitants or rural region, as it is we who would have to live 
with the negative effects of the PNGTS pipeline, and that concludes my 
presentation.  Thank you. 



THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Thank you very much, Mr. Miller, for your brief, it has a lot of 
points that have us thinking.  Thank you for the density and the 
quality of research that you did.  I believe you have studied the 
various components of the projects in detail.  I also congratulate you 
for your Internet site, and that was consulted several times by the 
collaborators of the Commission.  You raise several fundamental 
questions and bring to light some important aspects on this particular 
project. 

      Now, without taking your arguments one at a time, although they 
have been well taken by the Commission, we would still ask you a few 
questions to allow you perhaps to expand on some points.  

      Now, you say that Quebecers have not decided that Quebec will 
now be a hub in terms of gas in the transmission of natural gas.  Now, 
the debate that preceded the adoption of the energy policy and the 
parliamentary committee that was held, don't you think those certain 
elements of orientation in terms of the Quebec outlook on these, don't 
you think some of that came out of those two (2) things? 

MR. BRUCE MILLER: 

      I have to confess that I was totally unaware of any 
parliamentary considerations of that policy, totally unaware of it.  
And it is just my opinion, but I feel that the vast majority of 
people, who are affected by this pipeline, has no cognizance 
whatsoever of those hearings.  I say that with respect, and that's all 
I can say concerning that point. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Now, with regards to what you call secondary justifications for 
the project, now, in the context of free trade and global trading, 
now, to the extent that there is a need to serve U.S. clients or 
customers and to the extent that even if there is no proof of a 
market, now, regardless of the choice of corridor, don't you think 
that this need would be sufficient to justify such an installation? 

MR. BRUCE MILLER: 

      Well, I want to clarify the primary and the secondary 
justification.  The primary justification of this project is an 
economic justification.  That is the service of the New England 
natural gas market.  So, I believe that's the issue you are 
addressing.  I consider the secondary justification to be servicing 
the Quebec market.  

      If your question is in regards to the primary justification, 
natural gas is an interim fuel.  It is relatively clean, although as 
my research has shown or is beginning to show me recently, that it is 
perhaps less clean than we commonly think it is.  Nevertheless, it has 
its place, and I am not going to stand in the way of New England 
receiving the energy that it needs.  

      Concerning this project though, the point in my memoire is that 
natural gas is much more economically and environmentally deliverable 
from Sable Island than it is from Alberta, once again due to the 
length of the lines involved.  

      If you consult the tables in my memoire, you will see that the 
new construction and the total lengths of all these systems, if you 
analyze them, you will see that the PNGTS - the TQM system, the hub 
system, is a very unwieldy system.  It is very, very long.  I believe 
it would be roughly sixteen hundred (1,600) kilometres long, and I 
don't feel that that's the most - I can't see how that would be the 
most economically viable way to service that market.  

      We heard last night from various interveners that Tatham Off 
Shore has a proposal for a direct route from the gas fields in Sable 
Island onshore to New Hampshire.  I have not yet informed myself as to 
the environmental impacts of that project.  They would certainly have 
to be looked at very closely, but we could say that, as the promoters 
themselves pointed out in general, a shorter route is a route of less 
impact, and that route is once again less than one-seventh the length 
of the system proposed by TQM.  That route does not go through any 
land owners' property.  It remains to be seen whether it is 
economically viable and whether it could be done without too great a 
cost to the environment. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Thank you. 

      Mr. Paré. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      To expand a little more on this last point, because, in your 
memoire, you say, and I read: 

      "The promoters represent PNGTS extension as a stand-alone, self-
sufficient project, whose primary justification is the maintenance of 
exports of western Canadian natural gas to New England". 

      And then, you say: 

      "Considering the nearby reserves of natural gas being developed 
at Sable Island...", 

      etc. 

      Can't we say that providing gas that has already been extracted 
by existing equipments and carried on, however long it may be, 
existing pipes is preferable or could be preferable to developing both 
new extraction facilities and transportation like it seems it would be 
the case with Sable Island?  In other words, perhaps even from an 
environmental point of view, the continued exportation of gas from 
western Canada perhaps may appear more appropriate than developing the 
natural gas resources of the Atlantic offshore. 

MR. BRUCE MILLER: 

      Yes, well, there is two (2) points that come to mind, and 
unfortunately one of them has already slipped my mind, but I hope it 
will come back to me.  But, yes, I considered that, and my memoire 
makes an assumption, and that assumption is that those gas fields in 
Sable Island and Hibernia will be developed.  

      And because of contacts that I have made chiefly because of the 
website that I have put up, I have become much more aware of the 
environmental aspects of the M & NE project and the development of the 
Sable Island fields.  And because I have been busy preparing my 
memoire, I have not had time to look at all that material.  

      It is certainly something that needs investigating, but my 
assumption is, and it is rather unfortunate, but I feel that it is 
probably justified.  And that assumption is based on the fact that 
that gas is there, and it will be developed. 

      I spoke a little while ago of progress, and, personally, I am 
not sure that it would be progress to develop those reserves that are 
at Sable Island, but I feel that economic forces will prevail.  They 
will be developed. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      It is quite unlikely that they won't be.  That's what you are 
saying. 

MR. BRUCE MILLER: 

      That they will be just left there. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      Yes, okay. 

MR. BRUCE MILLER: 

      Yes, so, therefore, and this brings to mind the first point that 
I thought of at your question.  And if we make the assumption that 
that gas will be there, then if it weren't for the fact that we had to 
construct two hundred and fourteen (214) kilometres of twenty-four 
(24) inch pipeline across Quebec, I would say certainly continue 
shipping western gas, but if we can avoid it, if we can have another 
short corridor from those reserves and eliminate the necessity.  

      And again I make the point that nobody is talking about shipping 
Sable Island gas to Seattle, Washington.  So, there is something that 
is not logical there.  And there is one more point I should make.  
Maybe it will come back to me. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      Maybe it will come back later on. 

MR. BRUCE MILLER: 

      I hope so, yes, sorry. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      Okay, I have a second question for you, if you want. 

MR. BRUCE MILLER: 

      Sure, I'm ready. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      Okay, because you said that you referred - I mean you referred 
to other alternatives, saying that we would find reference to it in 
your memoire, but you did not expand.  I would be interested about 
hearing you on what you call unstudied alternative number 2.  Perhaps 
briefly outline what it is about.  And, secondly, since you state that 
they are likely to have less environmental impact than the other ones, 
perhaps you could expand as well on that aspect. 

MR. BRUCE MILLER: 

      Alright, well, the first unstudied alternative was the original 
line.  It was not studied.  My second proposed alternative is what I 
called in my memorandum the central PNGTSE, and it would be a route 
that would go north of the currently proposed route. And if I could 
find that section, perhaps you could help me... 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      Oh, on page 20. 

MR. BRUCE MILLER: 

      Page 20. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      Yes. 

MR. BRUCE MILLER: 

      Thank you, I described that route as one which would connect 
Lachenaie, St-Hyacinthe, Windsor, Cookshire, and a point somewhere to 
the west of East Hereford. And the actual route would be inside of 
that definition.  I point out in my memoire that this route would be 
marginally longer than the one that is proposed now.  

      And I realize that, as I just said a few moments ago, that, in 
general, the longer route means greater impact, that it could be the 
case that a longer route could mean less impact.  And the reasons I 
gave for that, they are essentially due to the characteristics of the 
two (2) routes.  

      Through the Eastern Townships, as I have developed in my memoire 
and which many other people have developed, because of the natural 
characteristics of the land through which that route goes, the 
mountains, the lakes, etc., and also because of the socio-economic 
considerations.  It is a very problematical route.  The promoters have 
acknowledged this themselves in their environmental impact assessment, 
that this is not an ideal route, the one which has been proposed. 

      So, therefore, it is possible that another route, even though it 
were marginally longer - and I would like to point out that the 
promoters had no objection to adding eighty-five (85) kilometres to 
the length of their route to accommodate the American project. Then, 
could not the addition of some few kilometres possibly offer a route 
which would have lower impact?  

      And my reasons for that lower impact would be or some of the 
benefits of it:  One of the benefits would be that it would pass 
closer to the markets that are perceived by the promoters.  It would 
avoid human settlement to a greater degree.  There is less population 
along that route.  In my memoire, you may be aware, there is a map 
which traces that route. 

      That route, in the area around St-Hyacinthe and east of it, 
would have the potential of using quite a bit of cultivated 
agricultural land.  And we know from the environmental assessment 
tabled by the promoters that, according to the guidelines that had 
been developed for projects like this, that, cultivated land, it is a 
good way to go, because after the period of construction and 
reclamation, then that land returns to its normal use. 

      The destruction of the micro terrain doesn't matter.  It has 
been destroyed anyway.  It is cultivated as if nothing ever happened.  
So, there is very, very low impact there.  I believe that that route 
could use more cultivated land than the one that has been proposed. 

      I hypothesized that such a route could have less of an impact on 
fauna.  Although I didn't cover it tonight, it is covered.  My 
concerns about fauna are very profound, and I hypothesized that, in 
the route which I proposed to the north of this route, there would be 
less pressure on animals as they disperse.  

      Animals will be dispersed by this project, wherever it goes.  
They are going to move away from the construction.  Now, in this area, 
that movement is inhibited by the presence of human settlement.  And 
in the case of our land, it will be inhibited by the very unfortunate 
use of land in proximity to ours.  I'm talking about virtual clear-
cutting, which has eliminated habitats.  So, I'm saying that that 
route would offer animals greater possibilities for out migration.  

      And I don't know if you have ever - I have lived in the - I'm a 
city boy, but I have lived in the country for twenty-five (25), 
twenty-six (26) years, and I have seen animals a lot in the country.  
And when there is too many raccoons in a small area or too many of any 
animals, it is very undesirable.  They are like human beings.  If you 
make a ghetto for animals, they behave just the way human beings do in 
ghettos.  So, they need space. They need territory.  Most of these 
animals are territorial.  So, I am saying that, on that northern 
route, they would have greater opportunities to find a territory, 
possibly. 

      One thing for sure is that that route would produce fewer 
negative effects on future land development, because I believe that 
that is one of the most serious impacts in the Eastern Townships.  It 
is that this project will preclude development that could have 
occurred in the future.  It is not only damaging the environment now, 
but it is damaging it for long term.  

      And, of course, it would create reduced impacts on recreational 
and tourist areas, because their area up there is one which would be 
more agriculture and industry.  And I feel that a route that went 
through a more industrial location would have less of the socio-
economic impacts than it would, for example, through the MRC of 
Memphremagog and East Hereford. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      Thank you. 

MR. BRUCE MILLER: 

      Okay, thank you. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Mr. Cloutier. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      Good evening, Mr. Miller, first of all, I think you did a lot of 
work and involvement in this public hearing process, and provided us 
with valuable information regarding the analysis that we should be 
undertaking in the coming weeks.  I would just like to follow up on 
the question asked by Mr. Paré, but maybe just to be a bit more 
specific.  The second option that you proposed, the second corridor, 
is basically market-oriented, if I understand correctly. 

MR. BRUCE MILLER: 

      From the standpoint of a secondary justification, yes. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      Okay, what should, in your mind, be the other criteria that 
should be considered in the location of a pipeline? 

MR. BRUCE MILLER: 

      Well, the promoters approached this as primarily marketing.  
They look for marketing first.  And then, they look for the 
environmental issues.  Now, I can understand that, because there is no 
point in putting a gas pipeline where there are no takers for it. And 
that's part of my objection, my very objection, to the route which is 
proposed, because I don't think that there are that many customers 
that require this pipeline in this area. 

      But my primary - I would like the environmental considerations - 
we have to remember that the primary justification for this project is 
the export of gas.  Serving the local market is the secondary, and we 
have to remember, I believe that it's - well, I can't state the 
figure, but I know that it is a very, very high percentage of the gas 
will be exported. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      Excuse me, I just want to get away from this project, but be 
more on the concept or generating ideas here --

MR. BRUCE MILLER: 

      Okay. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      Regarding criteria, defining criteria for pipelines or any 
infrastructures.  So, if we can get away for a few minutes here from -
-

MR. BRUCE MILLER: 

      I'll try. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      Okay. 

MR. BRUCE MILLER: 

      Okay, well, my criteria in looking for a pipeline, I suppose the 
environmental criteria would be the highest on my list.  And as I have 
stated here, I agree with the criteria that says that agricultural 
land is low impact. I am not always in agreement.  The same guidelines 
that were given also said that the use of other rights of way, of old 
rights of way, was a way of low impact.  And I think that - I don't 
agree with that statement. I think it can be true, but I think it can 
also be not true, the same way as multiple rights of way within a 
corridor.  

      I believe all those things should be looked on a case-by-case 
basis.  And perhaps when we talk about the criteria for finding a way 
to put a pipeline, one thing that comes to mind is that there should 
be more case-by-case analysis rather than going by guidelines which 
have been laid.  Guidelines are good, but that's what they are.  They 
are guidelines.  I think we have to go beyond guidelines and look at 
the specifics of everything. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      And how do you think we can get to those specific issues or 
concerns? 

MR. BRUCE MILLER: 

      Well, I would have one suggestion, and that would be that the 
process for determining these corridors, it should be a very long 
process that could accommodate the case-by-case and the specifics.  

      Right now, the process that we have for determining these 
corridors is very compressed.  Promoters find a market.  They make a 
proposal.  And because of pressures of marketing and competition, we 
can see that, in this case, in this specific case, there are a lot of 
pressures to be first.  You have to be first, the analogy of the 
rabbit. 

      I think that if we had not a different process, but a process 
that was designed to make the process more slow to allow more time, 
and not to allow it to be compressed, that might take away from some 
of those demands.  We might wind up with fewer pipelines, but we might 
wind up with better pipelines.  We might wind up with pipelines which 
had been constructed with better criteria.  I think it is too rapid, 
the process, right now.  It does not truly give time.  

      For me, these hearings have only begun.  I have more questions 
than when I started, and I am not simply alluding to questions from 
the promoters.  I mean general, the environment.  I have learned a lot 
during this process, and I'm very sorry that it is over, because I 
feel that if the process were longer, then the results would be 
better.  I don't know if that responds partly to your question. 



MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      Yes, thank you, I would just like to move on to another issue 
that you brought up regarding compensation.  As stated in the MRC 
report last night, in one of the attached maps, Bunker Hill is 
identified as an asset, an environmental asset to the region.  And you 
referred to it in terms of uniqueness, which there are no comparables 
in the region.  If it is so, I do understand your feelings on that 
issue.  On the other hand, do you have any comparisons or comparatives 
that we should be aware of? 

MR. BRUCE MILLER: 

      I'm sorry, what kind of comparisons? 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      Well, in terms of compensation, when the pipeline or any 
infrastructure goes on your land, I believe that you mentioned that 
the promoter does not have any comparables or cannot compare your land 
because of its uniqueness.  And my question is:  Are you aware of any 
land as unique as yours that the promoter or that we should be aware 
in terms of compensation? 

MR. BRUCE MILLER: 

      Well, I'm very attached to the piece of land that I moved to.  
And it is probably just a personal bias, but it wasn't until these 
hearings that I discovered that the Bunker Hill is an exceptional 
forest ecosystem, you know, by the book, officially, but I think I 
felt that the first day that I put foot on it.  And I have really 
never seen another place that I could compare it to, and it would be 
very difficult for me to describe that.  You would have to come and 
take a walk through it. 

      But concerning compensation, I feel that that would be another 
area that really needs to be addressed more fully in this process, the 
compensation.  I feel that it is not adequately addressed in the 
current process.  Promoters claim that there is no reduction in land 
value, for example, and they negotiate on that basis, but it just 
flies in the face of common sense.  We all know that land values are 
reduced.  

      Issues like that, I think that there should be a commission to 
study things like this and come up with criteria that would be more 
fair.  I think the whole subject of energy corridors, it should be 
delved into more.  There should be more participation and even on an 
international basis.  There should be more coordination between 
countries and regions. 


      And I feel that there should be an overall plan.  Right now, it 
is market driven. And, obviously, that system, it has to wind up in a 
market, but can't there be sort of a super authority that could look 
at this maybe even in North America?  The markets are pretty easily 
identified.  The energies are easily identified.  Why can't there be a 
master plan for energy as there is a master plan for our MRC?  It's 
just a thought. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      Thank you. 

MR. BRUCE MILLER: 

      Thank you. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Thank you for your presentation and your testimony, Mr. Miller.  
Now, we are going to take a break. 

                              SHORT ADJOURNMENT 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Okay, we are now ready to hear your exposé.  


MR. GEORGES-ÉMILE BOISVERT: 

      I think that Mr. Bernard Roy is going to speak a little bit 
later.  Well, I am going to start.  Concerning the aqueduct network of 
the municipality, it is almost the same thing that I said at the other 
hearing, but now I am doing it in the form of a brief.  

      When the Gaz Inter-Cité, in 1983, came to our municipality, 
there was an invasion of our source of drinking water.  There was a 
drop because of the dynamite work.  We had to then do a search for 
water, which cost us thirty-two thousand dollars ($32,000.00), and 
fourteen thousand ($14,000.00) of this was reimbursed by a grant from 
the government, but the taxpayers had to pay a sixteen thousand dollar 
($16,000.00) bill, which was paid by an increase of ten percent (10%) 
in the taxes.  

      As well, I would like to clarify something, that the village of 
Stukely lacked drinking water in 1976, as we had to repair a pipe that 
had broken, where a stream (inaudible).  It was on my land on Route 
112, and I had problems in terms of the (inaudible) drinking water 
(inaudible).  

      Part of my farm is on the Diligence Road, which is a panoramic 
vista.  This is a portion that was affected by gas and electric 
servitude in 1983.  About fifteen percent (15%) was (inaudible), forty 
percent (40%) other kinds of wood, and the remaining was original 
without the Hydro Quebec servitude.  Today, there was another seventy-
five (75) feet they wanted for TQM, which is in a cedar grove where we 
get our fenceposts, and the sector is also faced with a lot of deer. 

      In 1996, the municipalities spent fifteen thousand dollars 
($15,000.00) for a new well and in order to improve the supply of 
drinking water throughout the area. 

      Other comments have been made at the BAPE hearings concerning 
the damages to the municipal wells, and it is true that the taxpayers 
had to pay forty-five thousand dollars ($45,000.00) in order to 
correct the situation after the passage of the Inter-Cité gazoduc, the 
proceeding where we would like to know whether the TQM is going to 
reimburse the municipality for the costs which will be caused by the 
1983 system.  It is important that TQM see to the water supply of the 
municipality before proceeding with any works. 

      Presently, a petition is circulating on the territory of our 
municipality concerning this issue.  We thank you very much for your 
attention to these points.  This is to explain to you the reasons why 
we object to the route proposed by TQM. 

      Concerning the thirty-two thousand dollars ($32,000.00), we 
didn't write this down, but they had to dig two (2) wells.  It cost 
fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00) for each one of the wells, and 
we don't have any water from these wells. 

      Now, it is my brief.  In the table of contents, it is a 
presentation, the interests, personal opinion, the concerns, 
preoccupations, suggestions, recommendation. 

      Presentation, I am a land owner, a non-resident, of lot 214, 215 
at South Stukely. I bought this land from my mother in March, 1967.  
This land I use for different purposes. On the one hand, I produce 
finished wood and heating wood, and also I have a sugarbush.  As well, 
I produce hay for cattle food.  I am somebody who is very concerned 
with the environment, fauna, and flora, as well as the environmental 
quality for human beings. 

      The explanation of my interest for this subject, given that I 
like to be well informed, I consider that the pipeline proposed by TQM 
is going to cause negative impacts on me.  And I reach this conclusion 
on the basis of the experience I have had with other rights of way 
constructed on my property. 

      My opinion on the whole of the subject, I am in total 
disagreement with this route proposed, because it doesn't give me 
anything, and it causes me various kinds of prejudice.  In the near 
future, my farm is going to be shot through with a multitude of 
servitudes which lower the value of my land and don't do me any good. 

      My concerns as concerns the various components of the project, 
safety, TQM talks about the emergency measures that they are going to 
put into place in order to reassure the population.  How come their 
partner, Metropolitain Gaz, never came up with any valid emergency 
measures plan?  Ever since 1983, our village has been living under 
technological risks. 

      The value of my property, I think that having several servitudes 
lowers the value of my property.  In addition, TQM will cut through 
the middle of a panoramic landscape. Then, it will no longer be 
possible to build there.  The servitude therefore will cause me a 
serious prejudice. 

      The woods, the route proposed by TQM will go through a young 
cedar grove, which has great potential.  The cedar grove is something 
I use for wood for building my fences and for cabinet-making and 
carpentry wood.  In addition, this young cedar grove feeds the 
Virginia deer during the winter.  So, cutting the cedar grove is going 
to reduce the wood that I need for my personal needs and will imperil 
the survival of the flock of deer.  As far as I am concerned, being in 
the forest means that I can live near to nature and cut the wood that 
I need in order to maintain my farm. 

      Comments, suggestions, and recommendations, I feel that TQM 
lacked respect, because I was never warned that there was going to be 
land surveying work and forest inventory work done on my property.  
This work was done behind my back in secret.  I suggest TQM use the 
present right of way from Highwater to Montreal, which apparently will 
have less impact on our environment.  I don't want a second pipeline 
on my property and still less a third or fourth. 

      With this brief, I denounce the project because of the negative 
effects affecting the environmental quality of our community and 
signed. 

      Now, the brief of Bernard A. Roy for Mrs. France Carter:  
      Sir, I haven't been able to attend the hearings that have been 
held concerning the extension of the PNGTS pipeline from Montreal to 
Portland by the TQM pipeline extension.  I'm going to submit my 
consideration, my comments, and my reflection on this project. 

      As I informed Miss France Carter, I mandated Mr. Georges-Émile 
Boisvert, who is a producer and farmer from the village of South 
Stukely to read my letter and produce it at the hearings that are to 
be held on the 6th and 7th of August, 1997, in Magog, at the occasion 
of the presentation of briefs by various parties. 

      I have been a land owner since 19th of January, 1980, and it is 
a lot at 439 Chemin de la Diligence.  My land includes parts of the 
lots 203 and 204 of the official cadastre of Canton Stukely, and it is 
an area of a little bit more than twenty (20) acres, of which half is 
covered with woods.  And several buildings and outhouses have been 
built on this land, notably a large stone house of the Loyalist 
architectural style which was built in 1837. 

      Since January, 1997, I am a forest producer, member of the 
Forest Association of the Upper Yamaska, and I must, as of the fall of 
1997, start a program of reforestation. 

      Less than three hundred (300) feet from my house, there is an 
electric line going across my land the whole of its length with a 
right of way in favour of Southern Canada Power, which is now called 
Hydro Quebec.  In 1983, Gaz Inter-Cité Quebec Inc. built and has been 
operating since on the band of land which borders the electrical right 
of way a pipeline with a single canal.  For the purposes of this 
construction, I had to give them a real and perpetual servitude for a 
band of land eighteen (18) metres wide. 

      According to the information I had, the construction and the 
burying of the pipeline are going to create an additional permanent 
right of way in favour of Hydro Quebec and Gaz Inter-Cité of about 
twenty-three (23) metres, and will lead to a considerable cutting of 
wood and deforestation of part of my land. 

      And according to the documents and information distributed by 
TQM Gazoduc concerning notably the legal condition of the surface 
property, the promoter doesn't exclude the possibility of building 
other pipelines, which will mean that my real estate will be even 
further compromised and will affect the peaceable enjoyment of this 
place without even going into the prejudice related to the reduction 
of the commercial value of my real estate. 

      During the work carried out in 1983, the dynamite working around 
our property and the neighbourhood where are situated the sources of 
drinking water for the village of South Stukely lead to a lowering of 
the water tables, and this, in turn, resulted in a lack of water and 
the erratic functioning of the water supply. 

      Mitigation and attenuation measures of the impacts that we worry 
about on the environment as well as the emergency measures as 
announced by the promoter are not satisfactory, and bear the mark of 
pure improvisation. 

      Proof hasn't been given by the promoter that they have, in fact, 
explored other alternative paths other than that one which is going to 
destroy or at least affect the environment of our community.  On 
behalf of the so-called common good and the public interest, the 
promoter cannot impose on citizens some perverse effects related to 
such a project, unless they have first established its good faith, 
have demonstrated the absence of any other solution, and also 
established the effectiveness of the mitigation measures. 

      I would like to join my voice to those of my neighbours and the 
other taxpayers of this village of Stukely South, who have denounced 
this project which is going to seriously abridge their rights; Bernard 
Roy. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      You are a good reader.  You have presented three (3). 

MR. GEORGES-ÉMILE BOISVERT: 

      Well, I usually need my glasses, but here I can read without my 
glasses.  As long as I can see the ladies, there is not going to be 
any problem with my eyes. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      You are absolutely right. 

MR. GEORGES-ÉMILE BOISVERT: 

      We often say you can't teach an old monkey how to make faces. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      The first presentation that you gave us on behalf of the 
municipality, should we understand that that is the position of the 
municipality of South Stukely?  In your personal brief, you have asked 
a good question concerning the emergency measures.  We wonder why 
there were never any emergency measures following the construction of 
1983 pipeline.  Did you check this?  Is this a fact that there 
presently are no emergency measures concerning the existing pipeline? 

MR. GEORGES-ÉMILE BOISVERT: 

      We already had an emergency plan, but everything was burned when 
the city hall was burned to the ground, but there were only emergency 
measures for the village itself. There was no emergency measures 
prepared for the pipeline.  We haven't had any trouble so far.  We 
don't know what the future holds. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Mr. Paré. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      I would like to simply add that if there was a resolution from 
the municipality which supported the content of your letter, that 
would perhaps give it an official character. 

MR. GEORGES-ÉMILE BOISVERT: 

      Okay, there is a letter.  I think there was such a resolution 
adopted.  It is in the papers that we have filed in the past, because, 
you know, I'm the only - I'm the farmer who was the most affected by 
the construction of the pipeline.  That's why they mandated me to come 
and give this presentation. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Okay, thank you, Mr. Boisvert, thank you very much, it is not 
very long.  It's very simple.  Everything is there.  We are going to 
read it carefully and take that all into account doing our analysis.  
Mrs. Lucie Roy-Alain, Madame, it seems to me I recognize your face. 


MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN: 

      Good evening, Mr. Genest, Chairman, and Mr. Cloutier and Mr. 
Paré, Commissioners, I excuse, but I didn't have enough time, and I 
couldn't, in fact, finish polishing my brief.  And I would like to 
apologize as well for the quality of the photocopy. My photocopier is 
getting tired clearly.  I can send you a fax copy to replace this 
document.  But I'm telling you not to worry, Mr. Commissioners and Mr. 
Chairman, because this is going to be the last time you are going to 
see me at least concerning this project. 

      And tonight I'm wearing the hat of Lucie Roy-Alain.  I'm a 
native of St-Malo in the Eastern Townships.  In 1966, I decided to 
settle on a dairy farm in East Hereford with my husband Yvon.  And I 
must say that, for several months now, the TQM project has so upset my 
pleasure and my joy in living in an agriculture community, it is 
terrible.  I feel like going back to St-Malo.  I think even that my 
project of starting up an environmental business in East Hereford is 
going to be something I'm going to do elsewhere, if ever this pipeline 
goes through East Hereford. 

      To act, you have to have knowledge.  I have borrowed the BAPE 
memo for my brief.  And what's important to realize is that they gave 
us this memo in order that we know certain - we have certain elements 
of information in order to react to it.  You have noticed that the 
people who are well informed have acted, taken action contrary to 
those who simply relied on the information that came from TQM.  

      I must add, however, that even if certain tools are available to 
us, it is very difficult to get all the relevant documentation in a 
field which is a little bit - which is totally foreign for us.  

      Even though many people don't dare to get involved, because 
there are always risks of reprisals when we say publicly what we 
think; the reaction:  What's the point of wasting our time?  We are 
not in favour of this pipeline, but everything has already been 
decided.  That's also leads to an action. 

      The TQM people have circulated the rumour constantly in the 
village and around the village that the project has already been 
accepted.  And this rumour was even intensified before and during the 
hearings, because the representatives of the company seemed to be 
everywhere in our little village.  There are even municipal 
councillors who said there is nothing to be done.  Everything was 
already decided. 

The pressure, when Mr. Roger Sénécal telephoned us on July 4th, 
1997, to offer his cheque hot off the press, my husband and I answered 
at the same time that it wasn't a time to sign offers of purchase, 
that the whole question was in front of the BAPE, and we wanted to see 
if it was going to be refused.  

      He told us it is going to pass.  It has already been decided.  
It is just the BAPE. You can take your cheque anyway.  If it is 
passed, you can keep it, and we are going to lose it.  He continued to 
insist in order to make an appointment with us.  When TQM saw that 
they weren't going to get anywhere with us, they then hurried off to 
meet other people in the surrounding areas. 

      My native Indian blood, once more in history, the blood of the 
First Nations which flows in my veins is revolting, because they want 
to take advantage of our land.  In  the 1600's, it was the fur trade 
which interested the white people and the Europeans. Today, they want 
to impose the natural gas industry for the American profits on us.  

      Reasons change, but the collective rape and the non-respect of 
persons and their property remain the same.  For all kinds of 
fallacious and crazy reasons, they are restricting our rights and 
liberties.  What will we have left, when we don't even have the right 
to control what's happening with our property and with our liberty?  
Could it be at the very beginning of year 2000 in a society that we 
say is evolved, that we don't have the right to what we want with our 
property, and that they are constantly holding over our heads the 
threat of expropriation?  

      Little people without power continue to be crushed.  When a 
simple individual tries to make the kind of waves that TQM can do, he 
would quickly be arrested and would pay for his arrogant attitude?  
There seems to be a law which protects the big powerful people and 
punishes little people.  The Charter of Rights and Liberties, why does 
it exist? We are witness to a terrible blackmail and threats of 
expropriation.  Is it normal that this still can happen in 1997? 

      Agricultural heritage, in 1989, the family Béatrice Bégin and 
Antoine Roy was chosen for the agricultural family of the year in the 
competition organized by the Foundation of Farm Families.  In order to 
deserve such an honour, our family had to effectively demonstrate its 
attachment to its land, its love and its respect for the farm life, 
and the fact that we have continued in this lifestyle generation after 
generation.  

      Amongst my ancestors, I count Marie Rollet and Louis Hébert, who 
were the first farmers to come and colonize Quebec.  It is this 
farming blood which has been flowing in my veins for so long, this 
farm heritage as well as the values transmitted by our ancestors, 
which pushes me to defend our rights to a quiet life.  We should be 
exempt from rights of way on our agricultural land.  

      As well, my loving heart as a wife and mother and grandmother 
helps me to think of the future and the heritage we are going to leave 
to our children.  My four (4) children were extremely sad when they 
learned that there was going perhaps be another pipeline on our farm.  
I brought the document which was presented to the judge in order to 
win the family of farm prize. 

      The human and feelings versus health, the announcement of the 
pipeline project in our municipalities and the Eastern Townships, as 
well as our surprise to see our land being aimed at by this project, 
has caused an enormous stress.  This project has come and totally 
upset us, and our lives, and our municipalities.  We are all feeling 
terribly disgusted.  Although many people are on vacation, in addition 
to our work and our regular volunteer activities, we have to fight 
like crazy in order to defend our rights.  

      All the steps taken and the measures taken in order to push this 
pipeline were done in silence.  We are victims of psychological 
violence.  The guilty parties are able to walk around freely without 
permission.  

      Apart from the individuals that we saw on our land in the fall 
of 1996, there were also the people who went onto one of our 
properties at 290 Route 253 on June 29th, 1997.  Given this land isn't 
even going to be affected by the pipeline project, what were they 
doing there?  The licence number of the vehicle was FR25743.  This 
number was noted on a yeast envelope which I have kept as evidence, 
and we are not even making anymore bread in my house. 

      On June 30th, they were doing land surveying in front of our 
house.  And a man came close to our shed without our permission. 

      The picture in terms of health and safety services, here, I have 
gotten some information from the hospitals, I have already said.  
This, I don't think I have to repeat it. 

      Ambulance services, for the ambulance services, we are situated 
in the zone 507. Only two (2) ambulances are in service in order to 
serve a population of more than seventeen thousand (17,000) persons, 
those living in the Coaticook MRC and several surrounding 
municipalities.  Apparently, they can be in our village in somewhere 
between fifteen (15) to twenty (20) minutes.  I thought that they were 
pretty fast.  And, apparently, it is because when we are waiting for 
them, we find the time very long. 

      Firemen, in East Hereford, the protection in case of fire, it is 
ensured by the volunteer firemen from Beecher Falls in New Hampshire 
in the United States.  Generally, the firemen are on the site of the 
fire in somewhere between six (6) to fifteen (15) minutes after the 
call.  The alarm is sounded at the people in charge and the customs 
station.  

      However, on November 30th, 1989, during a night fire, everybody 
was sleeping, and it took almost twenty-five (25) long minutes before 
they were able to round up the volunteers.  This certainly is not 
reassuring.  Afterwards, there was the whole problem of the language 
barrier, which certainly harmed the comprehension and slowed down the 
help.  It finally was the neighbours who had to fight the fire with 
whatever they could find at hand before the arrival of the firemen. 

      Police services, our police force is the provincial police 
situated in Coaticook.  On July 17th, 1997, I discussed the whole 
matter with Yvon Tremblay who, in passing, had just only heard that 
there was going to be a pipeline project.  

      I asked him questions about the police staff and the territory 
that they served.  He told me that there were three (3) vehicles 
during the day for the three (3) patrollers, who patrol alone.   
However, from seven o'clock (7:00) at night to seven o'clock (7:00) in 
the morning, the patrollers have to be two (2) in the same vehicle.  
The territories that they have to serve go as far away at North 
Hatley, Beebe, Rock Island, and Stanstead.  

      In 1993, we organized a vigilante group.  We have often had to 
keep the criminals that we have to round up until three o'clock (3:00) 
in the morning.  We have never seen policemen.  We have to then give 
up our hostages.  It is the same thing that happens when there are 
accidents caused by drug or drink in our municipality.  The Americans 
have the time to organize their towing and be away in the United 
States without ever being caught.  We certainly couldn't do the same 
thing on the other side of the border. 

      The customs office, East Hereford, being a frontier 
municipality, has on its territory the custom offices.  On May 16th, 
1997, we learned that the station is going to see a reduction in the 
number of hours of opening.  It is only going to be open sixteen (16) 
hours per day. 

      Presently, we have peace, since the undesirable elements are on 
the blacklist and don't have the right to come into East Hereford.  
There are many, many times we have seen vandalism in East Hereford.  
These people take advantage of the fact that the police are so remote, 
and how easy it is to slip in across the border.  In our municipality, 
there has been a lot of damage caused on many occasions. 

      What is going to happen if the frontier becomes like a sieve?  
The Americans have taken pleasure by attaching tables, benches, trees, 
and even wells with chains in order to drag them over the asphalt 
until the border.  What is going to happen when they decide to attach 
with chains and drag the measuring and compression station?  What is 
going to happen if they decide to drag other equipment, which is even 
more important? 

      As you realize, East Hereford is not organized in order to have 
such a pipeline.  

      Insurance, we are told that our insurance is not going to 
increase, if there is a pipeline that goes through our place, but how 
can we be sure about this, when we read in The Tribunal of July 5th, 
Saturday, in 1997:  Certain insurance already banned pit bulls.  The 
journalists Denis Dufresne and Claude Plante reported in the last 
final paragraphs that: 

      "More and more companies are getting information in this regard 
for people who want to get insurance for their homes and civil 
liability insurance", added Councillor Fortier.  He specified that 
insurance companies do not ask automatically their new clients if they 
have a pit bull or any similar dog, but if there is a claim, he says, 
the company will honour it, but he is not sure that it will keep its 
insured during the policy renewal". 

      This article gets us thinking.  You can wonder who can assure us 
that our insurance is not going to go up, if one day the pit bull that 
is installed on our land perpetually decides to start biting. 

      There is also talk that insurers no longer want to insure for 
flooding. 

      Now, safety committee and emergency plan, during the public 
hearing of July 3, 1997, our mayor asked a question that Bernadette 
Blais-Dubreuil and myself prepared. He probably decided voluntarily to 
forget it.  I decided to no longer rely on other people to do my job 
for me.  I'm asking a question.  Who is going to pay for the alarm 
that will be sounded through the municipality in case of emergency? 

      The activities to set up an emergency preparedness committee in 
East Hereford started in 1994.  Right now, a secretary and a committee 
have been appointed.  Now, on this committee, the volunteers are 
invisible.  The people who signed the petition are no longer part of 
this emergency preparedness committee, and are now not prepared to 
take care of the emergency plan.  

      We are not very safe here.  Now, if people are not prepared to 
get involved in this with the security and so on, what kind of 
protection are we going to get?  I believe it is like despising us.  
It is as if they were saying: Tant Qu'à Mourir...  With the cuts in 
hospitals, do we need additional workload?  We shouldn't forget that 
the government is getting away from its responsibilities. 

      Taxes, the taxpayers of all the municipalities concerned by the 
pipeline project should have been consulted with respect to the 
poisoned gift that they are going to be given.  They should have had a 
written note, personal note, so that they feel concerned. How can they 
be asked to get involved in the emergency plan?  

      There are taxpayers who will be happy if there is money coming 
in, but would they be just as happy later on when they are given an 
endless bill?  Will they be happy when they discover that they have to 
invest for protection in case of emergency?  Will it be too late to 
realize that their manna is melting in the sun?  You have to think 
about this. 

      Even if the properties of certain people are not affected, they 
have servitudes where TQM would want to pass.  Is there anybody who is 
concerned about the municipal waterway?  It seems to me that we have 
been playing the ostrich for too long. 

      The rumours of an increase in land worth are circulating around 
East Hereford. Yet, at the municipal office in East Hereford, we are 
told that no document had been signed with TQM.  Why is TQM in so much 
of a hurry to have a perpetual commitment, but they are not making any 
perpetual commitment on their part?  It seems to me that when there is 
a marriage, the contract should be a two-way street.  The contract 
should be signed by both people.   

      Why did TQM not make a commitment with the municipalities?  Is 
this a forced marriage, where the wife, supported by an authoritarian 
father, has all the rights?  Does the husband want one to take French 
leave after a yes honoured by our government?  Is it possible that 
TQM, after a few years of setting up a lot of children, asks for a 
divorce and decides not to pay to the municipality mother with the 
agreement of the law?  Our single-parent mother will once again see 
the responsibilities being shovelled over to her, and then she will 
pass it on to our children.  Are we blinded to the point where we 
can't see this coming? 

      The Mercaptan, we have been told that there has not going to be 
any Mercaptan. And I continue to claim if this pipeline goes ahead, 
one day there is going to be, because if this one passes, they will 
probably try to pass other ones.  When Bruno Saint-Laurent tries to 
get us to believe that to get the municipalities to buy the emergency 
plan, he says that once they have this plan, that would allow them to 
integrate other distribution systems or other pipelines or railway 
lines in this plan. 

      The affirmation, at the Coaticook hearings on August 5th, Mr. 
Jacques Lessard, representing Mr. Paulin Quirion, got taken by Marcel 
Lauzon, by the affirmations regarding the natural gas needs of Marcel 
Lauzon's sawmill in East Hereford.  When there are affirmations made, 
they have to be proven.  When we heard this, we wondered what the heck 
was he getting involved in.  He said there was a question posed, and 
he was answering the question.  It is to us that he said this.  

      Now, for your information, the drying of wood at the sawmill is 
done through co-generation.  I believe there is an article on this in 
the document that I filed also.  On July 15th, our mayor, who works at 
the sawmill, told us that the wood dried this way was a better quality 
than that that is dried using natural gas.  He said that he had 
visited other sawmills that had natural gas installations.  He said 
that sometimes these sawmills have batches of wood that burn.  With 
respect to natural gas at East Hereford, if its profitability is lower 
than the approval threshold at Coaticook, what is going to happen with 
East Hereford? 

      A portrait of some of the signatories, I haven't had the time to 
write this up, but I just wanted to tell you that, among the owners 
that I know, those who signed or who are tempted to sign, some of 
them, their farm is either for sale or will soon be for sale, and they 
don't live in the area or on their land.  They live outside.  Out of 
eighteen (18), at least half of them are from outside.  How can the 
owners from Vancouver and the United States have pity on us?  How can 
they be as informed? 

      Now, among the people who are attracted by this project, there 
are those who are trying to use it to pay their debts or to increase 
their piggybanks.  Now, if I was in TQM's position, I am not going to 
be very proud with these types of signatures. 

      Mutual assistance network, when Mr. Saint-Laurent talks about a 
mutual assistance network to apply the emergency plan, who is he 
thinking about in the municipality or the MRC?  If he is thinking 
about the volunteers, why does TQM not hold public meetings to ask for 
their approval? 

      The way I see things, I don't think there is anybody who wants 
or who can fulfil these tasks.  They will probably want to get the 
task on the back of the owners who sold the land, because already you 
can see the owners (inaudible), and you can see a lot of them thinking 
that they are going to be making a lot of money.  

      As an owner, I will refuse to take part in this emergency plan.  
They should not count on me to be part of this network.  If the 
pipeline goes through East Hereford, there are people who will not 
want to buy a house there.  They are going to escape to more secure 
municipalities.  We are going to be seeing an exodus of the 
population, and municipalities will lose resource persons (brains).  
There is also a risk of capital and other investments going away, 
including me, who wanted to set up a small business in the 
environmental area.  I can tell you that the idea is now way back on 
the back burner. 

      The petition, in its brief, the East Hereford says that TQM 
wants to ensure that the population of East Hereford is satisfied with 
the arrival of a new taxpayer on its territory. The signatories of a 
petition of the Group of Frontier sends out a clear message to TQM: We 
do not want this mega project in East Hereford.  To date, seventy-
eight (78) residents or owners of East Hereford have signed the 
petition.  Other people will be signing. Twenty-eight (28) other 
people residing outside East Hereford have also signed this petition. 

      Among the signatories, you will notice that of our popular 
singer, Richard Séguin. You will also read what he had to say: 

      "Our rights and your voices have to be heard and respected.  Our 
land and our heritage are our collective heritage". 

      Richard Séguin assures us of his involvement to defend our 
heritage. 

      Our petition is not yet completed, because we still have to meet 
some other people, but I think we can have other documents that we 
will file, if you give us the permission to do so. 

      In closing, I would like to point out that the cassettes of TV 
reports of Télé 7, CKSH and CFKS (TQS), are part of my appendices.  
These televised reports explain the feelings of people in face of this 
pipeline project, and shows the pride of our population when the 
judges visited us on July 30th, 1997.  The comments of the judges are 
very important.  

      I have also tabled this document entitled: "Overview of the Life 
of the Community and the Consultation Between the Organizations in 
East Hereford".  It is a document that I sent to the BAPE.  And among 
the cassettes, there is this TV report of the visit of the judges in 
East Hereford that was not tabled, but that I will table, and you will 
be able to organize a little party to view that. 

      Mr. Chairman, Mr. Commissioners, going through this document, 
you will see the love and devotion of the volunteers of some of the 
organizations that work in the municipality.  Their donations, their 
energy, and their competence are equivalent to two (2) pipelines, and 
these are certain values.  This is the social fabric in East Hereford.  
You can't ask for more.  So, we can apply the proverb:  "A bird in 
hand is worth two (2) in the bush". 

      I would also like to point out that, in 1993, during the 
participation of East Hereford in the Entente Internationale Florale, 
we can state that there were more than a hundred thousand dollars 
($100,000.00) in economic spin-offs in the municipality.  This money, 
which is useful to pay taxes, was won through the welcome of our 
people, their devotion, their entrepreneurial spirit, and our 
campaign, which sometimes we describe as a flowered oasis in a crater 
of green.  They shouldn't count on me to describe this as a flowered 
oasis in a green space full of holes. 

      Mr. Chairman, if you let this pipeline go through East Hereford, 
who is going to pay for the burden of this decision in the future?  
Once again, I am asking you to propose that this pipeline go next to 
the current Montreal Pipeline right of way. 

      I want to thank the BAPE and all those who have helped me right 
from the beginning in presenting our opposition to this project. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Mrs. Roy, thank you once again for your involvement in this 
project, and the work that you have done to ensure that the citizens 
participate in the consultation process and express their point of 
view.  Thank you for your brief, which pretty much reiterates some of 
the arguments that you have already presented to us, and which 
provides more details. 

      You point out that, on July 4th, Mr. Roger Sénécal, well, he 
said it is going to go through.  It has been decided.  It is just the 
BAPE.  That's what he said? 

MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN: 

      Well, my husband approves that, and we have checked it.  The 
both of us were on the phone, and he said pretty much that. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Well, do you mean pretty much that, or is that exactly what he 
said?  Do you remember the words exactly? 

MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN: 

      Well, both of us, I don't think we can both be mistaken.  Well, 
it seems to me that I can still hear the tone in his voice right now. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Now, how did you interpret this message?  What did you think 
that meant? 

MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN: 

      Well, that what we thought was, what we said was what's the 
point of wasting a whole bunch of hundreds of thousands of dollars for 
the BAPE, if the decision has already been made.  It would be 
ridiculous.  

      So, in my view, the BAPE is there just - I think the BAPE is 
there for something. It is not just there to spend money, you know, at 
a time when we have got budget cuts all over the place, so...  And 
that's exactly why I thought of that. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Thank you; Mr. Paré. 





MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      Mrs. Roy, you referred to the fact that firefighting is done by 
volunteer firefighters from the U.S.  Has this been the case for a 
long time, or is it the result of the fact that you were unable to 
find services on the Quebec side? 

MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN: 

      I cannot tell you for how long it has been.  I think I have been 
married for thirty-one (31) years, and I think it has always been like 
that since I have been married.  It is because the closest 
firefighters are from Coaticook or St-Isidore, and they were less 
equipped than those on the other side of the border. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      But up until this point, despite the limits or the difficulties 
that you have talked about, it is the most adequate service you can 
get? 

MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN: 

      Yes, it is also the closest, because St-Isidore takes what, 
fifteen (15) minutes. Coaticook, the ambulance dispatchers say ten 
(10) to twenty (20) minutes, but they go faster than me. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      Anyway, okay, thank you, that answers my question. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Mme. Alain - Mme. Brodeur, thank you very much. 

MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN: 

      No, no, no, my name is Lucie Roy-Alain. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Okay, I'm sorry, I was reading Brodeur, who is the next person. 



MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN: 

      Actually, I insist on being called Mme. Alain. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Okay, thank you very much, Mrs. Roy-Alain. 

      Mr. Gérard Brodeur. 

MR. GÉRARD BRODEUR: 

      Mr. Chair, Mr. Commissioners, good evening, my name is Gérard 
Brodeur.  I'm a member of a coalition of owners concerned by the TQM 
pipeline and co-owner of the bed and breakfast called "l'Arôm'Antique" 
located at 36 Chemin Des Érables, South Stukely. 

      About over a year ago, I sold a part of my land to Gaz 
Metropolitain to allow them to construct a distribution centre.  The 
representative of an independent consulting firm certified to me, with 
photographs to support this, that they would be for connections of 
pipes with a little building for instruments surrounded by a safe 
fence eight (8) foot high. 

      Unfortunately, he forgot to tell me that there would also be an 
evacuation chimney in case of overflow of pressure.  Since then, there 
hasn't been a month without us feeling or smelling the smell of rotten 
eggs.  I go to the cornerstore,  the dépanneur, next to us, and I 
don't feel proud that I led them to incur this. 

      During the information session in Stukely, I asked the question, 
and I was told that it is normal for the chimney.  I asked them if it 
was normal for the chimney to give off this smell, and they told me it 
is impossible.  Gas, I prefer to sell it than to send it out in the 
air.  And the same evening, coming back from the meeting around eleven 
o'clock (11:00), in the cold, my wife and I found that the chimney of 
gas was giving off beautiful smoke like a chimney in a house that is 
heated with oil in the cold.  

      So, I understood that they had pulled a fast one the first time 
when we agreed to sell them a portion of our land, and the second time 
when the representative of Gaz Metropolitain pretty much laughed at us 
in the face; all this to show you the non-transparency and hypocrisy 
behind these big companies.  Now, we are forced, my neighbours and me, 
my clients and myself, to live with this smell, because there is 
nothing we can do to correct the situation. 

      Now, for TQM, I am convinced that they are the same hypocrisy, 
when you see the way they are acting.  They started with an 
independent agent to try to justify themselves by doing studies on our 
land without permission, by making sure that they kept their markers 
in our place.  The result is that I have already seen this band on my 
land.  

      I attended a meeting of owners in South Stukely on June 13th.  
One of the owners told me - I'm sorry, I lost a line there.  One of 
the owners told me that he had attended a TQM information session 
about a week earlier.  I don't know.  I believe it was in Granby or 
Montreal, and that TQM, Mr. Trudelle in person, apologized to the 
people who had done some work on private land, and that it would not 
happen again.  

      That's when I told him that the morning of June 13th, 1997, 
about one (1) week after his apologies to citizens,  I told him that a 
team of three (3) land surveyors showed up on my property.  I told him 
the funny thing that my wife believed she was alone with the door 
opened at the back.  So, one of the land surveyors would have stayed 
right just next to the window; all this to tell you the hypocrisy, 
just to show you the hypocrisy we have incurred. 

      On June 23rd, 1997, I attended a session of the BAPE in Magog.  
I should congratulate you for your far-sightedness.  And I realize 
that when we asked the question that the promoter found embarrassing, 
they always asked Mr. Delisle to answer, and he always started saying: 
Mr. President, uhhhhhhhh...  And the gramaphone went on for about 
three (3) minutes to give us evasive answers that could be summarized 
in two (2) words: bullshit!  

      Never did I hear any of the promoters say that they were 
committed and I underline personally and in writing on behalf of the 
company to provide full satisfaction to each citizen concerned, to the 
municipality, to the environment, etc., etc.  
      And I know full well that when they will be on our land, it will 
be too late.  We should endure this forever, endure their accidents, 
you know.  Water sources cut.  Lakes dry, and so on and so forth, not 
to mention another chimney that is going to show up somewhere.  Who 
knows?  In my case, they didn't tell me that there is not going to be 
any.  They simply and intentionally forgot to tell me.  

      This is why, Mr. President and Mr. Commissioners, since our fate 
is in your hands, we, the owners concerned and myself, we beg you to 
be vigilant about this.  Even if this project goes through despite our 
refusal, we want this company to put on its pants and make a 
commitment in writing, before the Commission submits its report, to be 
liable for any damage or prejudice caused during the passage or in the 
future, since we, the little guys, we could no longer continue to 
fight against these big companies with their big monies and their big 
expert lawyers.  

      I don't think that anybody, even yourselves, Mr. President or 
the President of TQM, would agree that a two (2) foot pipe of gas be 
buried at less than a hundred (100) feet from your house against your 
wish.  Could you be able to sleep peacefully?  And what about if there 
was a serious earthquake?  

      I don't know why they are insisting on imposing a pipeline on us 
in our beautiful scenic area, where they don't even have major 
potential buyers, whereas we know very well that the first plan, i.e. 
that of the Montreal Pipeline system, is the ideal for this kind of 
project, because it already exists, and it runs from Montreal to 
Portland, and that it would be put out of use very soon. 

      In addition, the Sable Island project proposed by Tatham Off 
Shore, appendix included, a Texas company, a competitor of TQM, seems 
very logical, whereas we know that the pipes do not rust under water 
and so, it is much more advantageous and safe at the same time. 

      I am confident that this brief will sound an alarm, and that you 
will take into account my fears and apprehensions, as well as those of 
all the citizens concerned, and the environment, and the peace of mind 
of the entire Eastern Townships that could be completely upset due to 
this project.  The Eastern Townships, as a whole, wants to remain the 
most beautiful and healthy regions in Quebec, period, thank you very 
much. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Mr. Brodeur, the alarm has sounded.  If I understand correctly, 
it is still smelling. 

MR. GÉRALD BRODEUR: 

      Yes, there is a 1-800 number, and we are put on hold for fifteen 
(15) minutes, and then, afterwards, bang, they shut down the phone on 
us. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      So, your problems are not of affection, but more because of the 
smell. 

MR. GÉRALD BRODEUR: 

      Well, I can take your phone.  I call you any time, if you want, 
whenever I get this smell.  It is at least once a month.  About two 
(2) weeks ago, they came.  They had about two (2) trucks working in 
the field.  I mean this is something that they hid from us. This is 
what I'm trying to show the people, that they are hiding everything 
from us.  

      If they had told me at the beginning - first, I said, well, I'm 
going to go with progress.  I'm going to give them an opportunity.  
They have pipes to bury.  That's fine, but they never told me that, 
you know, it is going to be smelling like this.  I had a bed and 
breakfast, and one of my clients, two (2) weeks ago, one of my 
customers told me, you know:  What's smelling like this?  I've got 
about eleven (11) chickens in the place, and I am sure that's not 
what's smelling. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Mr. Paré. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      Mr. Brodeur, I would like to believe that sometimes you call, 
and you have to wait. For the past year, what have you done to try to 
get more information on this? 

MR. GÉRALD BRODEUR: 

      I haven't done anything else except call them and try to create 
some propaganda and alert people to this.  I have not done anything 
else.  It's true, because, you know, the ball keeps going from one 
court to the other.  As I told you earlier on during the TQM 
information session, they pretty much laughed to us in the face.  You 
can see the way they treat us. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      Yes, I have noted that, but you are telling me that each time 
you called, you never spoke to anyone? 

MR. GÉRALD BRODEUR: 

      No, personally, my wife calls, and each time she doesn't get 
through.  She has to wait for ten (10), fifteen (15) minutes, and 
there is no answer at the other end.  I'm saying that somebody should 
probably try to - maybe somebody else reached them, because they came 
two (2) or three (3) days later to try to repair it. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      Well, maybe you should insist more.  Take another 1-800 number 
or something. I don't know. 


MR. GÉRALD BRODEUR: 

      Well, Mr. Paré, I'm sorry, but we are completely innocent in 
this.  They should have the facilities.  They should have safe 
facilities, first of all. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      You are absolutely right.  What I'm saying is maybe you should 
fight a little bit more. 

MR. GÉRALD BRODEUR: 

      Well, I even wish to have one day, I don't know, that somebody 
will go and destroy this, but I mean I have one of my neighbours who 
thought maybe we should just blast the whole thing up.  We are always 
wondering what to do, because, you know, they are playing games with 
us. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      Well, perhaps these hearings will provide an opportunity for us 
to know better and maybe to point it out in the newspapers or 
something.  I don't know.  Anyway, I think it would produce results. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Thank you; Mr. Cloutier. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      Mr. Brodeur, it is unfortunate to see what's happening right 
now.  Do you believe that to prevent this kind of situation we could 
think about the following solution?  I would like to see what you 
think about this.  

      Now, in the event that there are other projects, other 
infrastructures, associated with this inter-city pipeline, would it be 
possible to think about visiting comparable facilities in other 
territories to be able to meet people who have similar equipment 
around their houses, so that you can see what is - be able to judge? 

MR. GÉRALD BRODEUR: 

      Are you telling me that I should do this? 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      No, I'm saying to prevent what you have experienced. 

MR. GÉRALD BRODEUR: 

      Well, personally, I was told that there was going to be a 
pumping station at East Hereford.  I started calling people.  They 
said come and see, but it doesn't mean that when I call people at East 
Hereford, on that particular day, the smell is going to be there, but 
I mean we haven't smelled it in about two (2) or three (3) weeks, but 
I know that at once a month it smells, but I can't tell you what day 
it is going to be.  There is too much pressure.  Then, it smells.  
That's what I tried to tell people around me. 

      Now, for the other facilities, I cannot - I mean I haven't done 
anything to see if it smells, if all stations smell like that, but 
what I don't like is that we had not been advised of this before. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      Well, let me reformulate my question. 

MR. GÉRALD BRODEUR: 

      I'm sorry if I didn't answer correctly. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      Would it have been useful for Gaz Metropolitain to propose 
before building the distribution centre, which is mentioned in your 
letter that they proposed to you, that you could go and visit 
installations which would be the same as the one that is proposed? 

MR. GÉRALD BRODEUR: 

      Yes, that would have been a good idea, because, first of all, if 
we go by car, we are going to see a station like that, but we don't 
think that it can smell.  If they told me if there is an overload of 
pressure and it is probably going to be evacuated by the chimney, I 
would have perhaps wanted to know more about it.  That's what I think.  

      I have seen another stations like that.  If somebody had told me 
go and see some other stations like that, I would have gone to see the 
neighbours around, if I knew that it could evacuate like that, but we 
didn't know that it was going to evacuate.  We imagined it is just a 
little kind of building with exterior piping and controls.  We said 
there is no problem with that. 

      So, I wasn't informed at all.  Had I been informed that it could 
evacuate like that, obviously I would have gone further.  I would have 
gone and seen the neighbours, but as long as it doesn't happen, we 
can't imagine what's going to happen when it hasn't already happened, 
but now it has already happened.  I prefer to warn people about what 
is going to happen. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      Are there any other methods apart from methods that can be 
useful to - that might be useful that we should look at for the future 
for new distribution centres like that? 

MR. GÉRALD BRODEUR: 

      I am not an expert in the matter, but, first of all, the station 
is in a low sort of very low-lying area.  It is the lowest area of the 
whole Stukely.  I think what they should have done is like they did 
for the refineries in Montreal.  You have to have the chimney go up 
very, very high, so that the air goes out.  You know, even though 
there is bad air up on the top of the mountain, nobody is going to 
smell it, but it is still produced.  So, it doesn't really get to the 
root of problem. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      So, thank you, Mr. Brodeur, it's a pleasure; Mr. Norman Benoňt. 

MR. NORMAN BENOIT: 

      Good evening, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to skip over sections in 
order to try to keep some time for the end.  The first part of this 
brief represents my perception of the TQM project, and I'm going to 
give my recommendations in the second part. 

      Part 1, the reality, unequal teams, I was looking for the word, 
but the only word that came to my mind was the teams.  You have, on 
one side, the promoter, who is an expert in the field, who has 
resources of expertise and finances which are almost unlimited with a 
very well-sought out and planned goal, compared to people from the 
community and other types of people who have good intentions, but they 
don't really know what the real implications of the pipeline are on 
them and their community. 

      The approach of TQM, this kind of project takes several years 
before it is launched.  The TQM project must have started in and about 
at the same time as the PNGTS project five (5) years ago.  However, 
the first steps that the owners of these companies took was to walk 
over our land without our permission during the past fall and smack-
dab in the middle of the hunting period, therefore disturbing game and 
hunters. 

      Afterwards, there were reunions held in January, 1997, as 
required by the National Energy Office.  The promoter had the 
obligation to explain the project to the people present in order that 
they could become aware of all the implications.  I have already filed 
the directives of the National Energy Office.  The promoter used these 
meetings in order to try to sell his project instead of trying to 
inform adequately the public.  If the information given by the 
promoter were incomplete or mistaken, he would receive a response from 
the public, and that's exactly what happened. 

      As we were able to observe on many occasions in front of the 
audiences, the TQM representatives have an aversion for clear, simple, 
direct answers.  In private, it is even worse.  Promises, false 
information, and always the impression that the project is something 
that is acquired, that's also part of the approach.  You have just to 
ask the land owners who haven't even been identified as being against 
the project to confirm what I'm saying here. 

      The servitude contract, I'm going to skip down to the last 
paragraph.  During the information meetings and private meetings, TQM 
has been telling us that these contracts are standard and cannot be 
modified or changed.  However, ONE informs us that the agreement 
between an owner and the company TQM, the private company, and that 
the privates can put anything they want into the document of sale.  
TQM indicated to me that nothing had been changed in their 
presentation and that people are used to.  

      TQM has talked to us about the mitigation measures in rural 
areas, which contradicts their servitude.  For instance, overhead 
supervision is one.  The servitude doesn't even talk about this 
booklet, and the TQM has simply made me more worried than ever, but 
anyways it is important to add that TQM is not prepared to assume 
responsibility for all the inconveniences that we suffer and the 
future loss of the property value in and close to the (inaudible). 

      Compensation, the way TQM goes about evaluating property is 
unique in the world of evaluation.  They evaluate the land by basing 
themselves on a fraction of the total value of the land.  The 
certified evaluators always use elements which are really comparable.  
The price of an acre is not the same as the acre or at eight (8), or 
ten (10) acres or fifteen (15) down the road. 

      Municipal responsibilities, it has been demonstrated that TQM 
has no intention of assuming the responsibility for all the 
expenditures that municipalities are going to have to make.  In 
addition, TQM hasn't taken advantage of these hearings in order to 
clarify once and for all the whole question of what revenues will be 
given to the municipalities. 

      In the 1995 annual report, the TQM shareholders - at that 
meeting, the President declared that something which helped us to, in 
fact, come up with a balanced budget. Our income was slightly over 
that of our expenditures.  This was said in the reimbursement of the 
minimum taxes prepared at this time. 

      Safety, we have been drowned by actuary reports in Granby.  We 
were told that Canadian statistics were not available.  However, the 
ordinary land owners had extracts of them in photos and filed them at 
the hearing at the very evening.  We saw a citizen concerned go 
through and pick out all kinds of errors in their safety manual.  Can 
you imagine what a specialized engineer could have found? 

      TQM have shown that they are not really serious nor are they 
prepared to be open in the fields of health and safety.  This 
increases my worries for the future and reduces to zero (0) TQM and 
its representatives. 

      You will find here in appendix 1 the testimony of Dr. James 
Harrod concerning the dangers of natural gas.  He is talking about 
BPC's, dioxines, fluorides, and he has recommendations for those 
conditions.  

      Contrary to what has been said by TQM during the hearings, 
giving up the constructing of a pipeline is far from being something 
which can be done lightly or easily. I would ask to you to check the 
web site of the Canadian...  We realize that this technology is at its 
very beginning, and that Quebec doesn't have any regulations on the 
subject.  Appendix 2 is simply a page of introduction on the site. 

      Political will, it goes without saying that this kind of project 
needs some kind of support from the government, and this long before 
it becomes public.  The promise of three thousand six hundred (3,600) 
jobs have helped, but the project, the idea that the route could be 
going towards the Vermont way was taken a week ago after the summit 
meeting, that this project was only going to generate twenty-six 
percent (26%) of the jobs that have been talked about.  

      The promoters often tell us that this project was against the 
policy of the Prime Minister of Quebec, because there is worry about 
the pollution which might be caused, and as well there is some places 
that the (inaudible) seems to be able to open eventually. 

      How come they didn't meet the directives that are necessary for 
the impact study? This surely is an indication of the incompetence and 
perhaps the interference of the Council of Ministers.  And if the 
negotiations with TQM mean that only certain rules are going to be 
followed, what is the point of having directives? 

      Do you not find it strange that TQM asked this Commission, the 
BAPE Commission, to make its report on the basis of studies that are 
very far away and, in any case, the Ministry directives will not be 
adhered to? 

      BAPE and FERC, with twenty-seven and a half (27 1/2) of the shares 
in PNGTS, it is very clear that the people who are running TQM have a 
great interest and are going to fully cooperate with TQM.  Unless 
there has been non-public exchanges between the BAPE and the FERC in 
order to exchange information, the BAPE has a disadvantage vis-ô-vis 
TQM. 

      Here is certain information obtained at this hearing: 
      One (1), contrary to what PNGTS told us about East Hereford, the 
municipalities are not getting any help from the promoter for the cost 
resulting from the move. 

      Secondly, PNGTS could increase the pressure to eighteen hundred 
(1,800) pounds per square inch. 

      PNGTS and TQM share the same lack of respect for environment and 
the property. 

      Four (4), contrary to what TQM has said concerning the 
construction of a second pipeline, the project hasn't yet been given 
up.  The FERC has informed us that the decisions concerning the 
liquefaction factory at Wells was something waiting to come in. 

      Five (5), the FERC has no preference for the place at which you 
cross the... 

      Fauna, TQM has told us that there are only two (2) herds of 
deer.  It shows a great lack of information or total scorn for the 
area.  We have the largest group of Virginia deer outside of the Ile 
of Anticosti.  We are also anxious every winter, because you bring the 
-
 during the winter, our deers have already had to eat the bark on the 
trees.  And if this happens again, then we know that we are in the 
midst of famine period.  What is the impact of wood-cutting going to 
have?  What can we say about the air surveillance, particularly in the 
case of the festivals, and then the people riding bicycles (inaudible) 
after that? 

      During the emergency meetings, TQM held a meeting in order to 
consult about the project growing.  We know that the project of 
liquefied gas is not dead, and there is a rumour that there is going 
to be another pipeline in the Bolton region.  The TQM pipeline is only 
a foot open in the door to all kinds of other proposed projects. 

      The route which was traced, TQM has never been able to justify 
the change in the route.  The reason is because PNGTS wants to connect 
up with New Hampshire rather than in Vermont.  And they are going to 
put therefore sixty (60) kilometres of roads in the most beautiful 
domain. 

      If the Commission gives its approval to this company, which is 
an American company situated in the United States, I think we are 
very, very far from being masters in our own house.  And, in fact, we 
would have a precedent set. 

      The route which is being proposed means that they are going to 
cut this wide swath through my land.  My neighbours are deprived of 
the revenues from this land perpetually.  The route goes through an 
old tiny village with eight (8) different cellars.  

      And in the middle of my cows, I remember that it was my great-
grandfather that told me that this was a lot where the school was.  
Very soon, my grandchildren are going to be old enough that I'm going 
to transmit to them this information.  The road goes through two (2) 
farmer roads used by the colonialists, and the provincial motorcycle 
path, and the path of the (inaudible). 

      The reason why I think that these intruders went into the 
sugarbush - we are talking about Mr. Gagné - is because, in my case, 
the house is about forty-five (45) feet, and therefore you have to go 
this far down in the rock in order to actually meet up with the swamp. 

      It is really the sanctuary to which I am very attached. 

      The second part of my paper is going to be my recommendations. 

      The unequalness of the teams, the population has to have 
mandatorily access to the same resources as the promoters do.  There 
has already been a report done "Intervener Funding Options" to this 
effect.  Your support for this report is a step towards (inaudible). 

      The TQM project, the TQM should take into account that we live 
in a new world where the population is better educated, and 
communication is much easier.  This means that there will be more 
transparency and more honesty with the public, which is becoming more 
and more demanding.  

      As well, they have to demonstrate a respect for the laws and 
give real answers to our questions, even if it might appear that they 
are trying to deform the information that they are giving to the 
majority of the population.  It is terrible, but it is also an 
indication of the fact that the company is running scared.  It is 
difficult for them to admit that the general public is going to 
participate even if they are not getting any money. 

      Only a government intervention is going to be able to protect 
the government from abuse.  This could take the place of something 
being blocked. 

      Compensation, not only does the... have to redo their 
calculations, but they have to be held responsible for any 
disturbance, any loss, any problem, anything that has to be done.  The 
problem is that having - the promoter is going to have to pay for this 
and hand out the grants wherever his route goes through.  You also 
have to keep in mind that it is a commercial transaction, not a trade 
transaction.  And our land is just as important as the land where the 
reserve tanks are held. 

      Experience shows that the companies who succeed the best are 
those who share their profits with their children.  TQM should 
envisage paying rent to the owners as long as the gazoduc is still 
where it is.  This would lead to a better acceptance, I think, by 
(inaudible), when we have to actually throw out the gazoduc in the 
end. 

      TQM should clarify once and forever this whole question before 
an agreement of the government bodies is reached, whether it be 
provincial, federal, or municipal. 

      TQM has to assume all the costs for the safety of this project, 
as well as the implementation and the follow-up of the security 
programs.  It is not reasonable to ask the volunteers to be given this 
responsibility.  It is a direct attack on TQM by the population in 
allowing for a less... and it is difficult energy. 

      The government has to make sure that they have the necessary 
staff in order to do a follow-up on the operation by...  I'm sure that 
it is pretty clear now.  The rule of the payeur (inaudible) is 
something that is important to make sure that the taxpayer isn't 
paying for this duplication. 

      We remember that, in terms of directives for the eventual 
firing, there is a piece of paper sent off to the Labour (inaudible) 
but TQM can't respect it and... 

      Political will, this part of the brief is not going to be the 
easiest one.  However, you are going to have to re-establish the facts 
in order that the Council of Ministers can take an informed decision 
rather than spend all their time on the question of lobbying. 

      Therefore, I would ask you to include in your report, for the 
purposes of the citizens and for a general (inaudible) why it is the 
Minister of Flora and the Fauna didn't do more to make sure that its 
directives were respected by TQM. 

      BAPE-FERC, what kind of insurance do you have to have exchange 
of information with Hereford?  It is important not to forget the 
source.  It is really to be appreciated. 

      Fauna, I think this question should be addressed to the 
promoters in a very serious way.  I think it could be the (inaudible) 
can explain itself. 

      Okay, the scope of the project, that times change and needs as 
well.   There is no proof that this pipeline is the only one, and that 
there won't be changes which will be adjusted somewhere along the 
road.  I think the product is to show what you should show.  What did 
I do?  It is to question the relevance of the project. 

      The changed route, let me make you a very easy task.  Could you 
recommend that the... which means you have got to reduce the impact of 
seventy-seven (77) kilometres. Secondly, if you recommend that the 
corridor be eighteen (18) feet wide, that is to say the same width as 
the United States for the continuation of the same gazoduc to save 
sixteen (16)...  You are going to be heroes. 

      In my place, the future generations would perhaps want to 
develop this region according to needs which come out of their season.  
For the moment, however, I like the land as it is without a pipeline.  
I am determined to conserve it as it is in order that my heirs don't 
have any restriction caused by one or more pipelines.  Thank you very 
much. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      So, Mr. Benoňt, thank you very much for your brief, which shows 
that you have examined carefully the whole question and (inaudible) 
number of services and recommendations, which are going to be very 
useful for the Commission.  Could you perhaps comment to us very 
briefly what you mean when you say it is not reasonable to ask 
volunteers to assume responsibilities in the area of...?  Is there 
somebody there? 

MR. NORMAN BENOIT: 

      The whole system of security, and the villages have very few 
people left in them. They don't seem to remain there.  We are talking, 
for instance, about the service, the voluntary service guys.  It means 
that it is not for them to buy a gazoduc, if there are expenses, and 
they have extra money, then it is up to the Gazoduc if they want to 
accept the costs, let's say accept these responsibilities.  In order 
to save them money, what are they going to do with that?  More 
profits?  Be more competitive?  Okay, I can see that you are going to 
have fun. 



THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Okay, you have mentioned you can draw a parallel here with other 
public installations, which have such measures. 

MR. NORMAN BENOIT: 

      At the end of the (inaudible) note in the meeting, and as well 
there was something (inaudible), (inaudible) constitutes a problem in 
the various provinces before throwing anything out.  Even the problem 
ones, there is no regulations about it or no serious regulation.  In a 
couple of states or provinces, there was a...  Also, I thought about 
nuclear waste.  It is the items which have slowed or put a break on 
the development of hydro electricity.  

      (Inaudible), okay, well, (inaudible) that I wanted to hear.  It 
is not an excuse in order to harm the people who are already sitting 
there.  The promoter is certainly going to see it that way.  It's good 
news if it is signed, but we are talking about sustainable 
development.  If we are coming up with problems that we know are going 
to be problems, we are building things which are simply going to lead 
to problems later on.  And if we let them do it, then I think we are 
really at fault. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Mr. Paré. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      Mr. Benoňt, in your brief, you talk to the testimony of Dr. 
Harrod.  If I understand properly, Mr. Harrod is not an expert in gas, 
but it is a testimony concerning what he has observed.  

MR. NORMAN BENOIT: 

      This is really the recommendations.  There are several things 
that I have said in there which you will find in the document from 
Quebec --

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      No, no, I don't think I --



MR. NORMAN BENOIT: 

      On dioxins and so on.  

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      Presently, attached to that, there is a fax sheet, a two (2) 
page fax sheet.  Could you tell me the source of that? 

MR. NORMAN BENOIT: 

      It came from Dr. Veraducci. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      Is he the author of it, or is it photocopied from another 
sector? 

MR. NORMAN BENOIT: 

      I don't know. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      Okay, thank you. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Mr. Cloutier. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      Yes, Mr. Benoňt, you mentioned here that the inequality of the 
teams and other testimony reported to David (inaudible).  I think that 
these are synonyms of each other. You are here referring to the fact 
to re-establish the balance in the situation that we are living 
through.  You are referring to a report entitled "Intervener Funding 
Options". 

MR. NORMAN BENOIT: 

      If you would like to have it in French, okay, that would be easy 
to get from the office employee.  I obtained it only in English. 


MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      No, no, that's fine, but it says option of financing 
(inaudible).  Does it concern financial support or... 

MR. NORMAN BENOIT: 

      I, like the other land owners, who have been affected by the 
project, are going to have to hire professionals in the environment in 
order to verify and check up what the... analyst is saying.  And this 
forces us to do a better job as of the beginning.  Of course, the 
pipeline companies are opposed to this, are ferociously opposed to 
this.  Presently, at the federal level, there is going to be a change 
made in the law of the national energy. In the present trade, we 
needed it the most.  And they would cut the lawn back to us, and would 
then give the temperature to (inaudible).  

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      So, it is a document which is being discussed. 

MR. NORMAN BENOIT: 

      No, no, it is more than that.  It has already been discussed, 
and a report has come down in which the companies such as Gazoduc and 
Hydro Quebec are opposed to it. They said that it was simply going to 
delay the projects.  However, the pipeline companies in Canada have 
two (2) associations, and we are going to sight them on Internet.  
Their policy is to... between explanations...  We don't have the right 
to that. We don't have the right to defend ourselves, in fact. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Okay, thank you. 

MR. NORMAN BENOIT: 

      Mr. Genest, I'm sorry, there was a comment I want to make 
concerning the Quebec energy policy.  And if I can air this comment, 
Quebec wants to become the international centre for the transfer of 
any kind of energy.  I think that the money doesn't have any loyalty.  
It doesn't have any nationality, as far as I know.  

      If we want to bring natural gas from anywhere else, including 
for the moment in Quebec, then we are going have those ...  We are 
going to have to get them up ...  I don't think that this policy...  
They are great words, but, in fact, this section is perhaps not 
adequate.  

      If Hydro Quebec wants to come and invest in projects outside, 
and that's the way of ..., how important it is going to be from a 
health point of view, that I agree totally with, that it's perfect, 
but to say that you have to bring all these pipes through our backyard 
before sending them ..., when you have no natural gas in the province 
- he was back there.  Tom thought he was dreaming.  Thanks very much. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Thank you, Mr. Benoňt; I am now going to call Mr. Marius 
Cloutier. 

MR. MARIUS CLOUTIER: 

      Good evening, my brief is quite humble.  It is not very long.  
It is pretty much a summary.  I'm just going to try to - well, the 
summary on paper is very short, but the explanations may be quite 
long. 

      Ste-Catherine de Hatley, 22nd July, 1997, re Marius Cloutier, 
opponent to this project, and his address, I am firmly opposed to this 
TQM pipeline project from Lachenaie to the Quebec/New Hampshire border 
as a project. 

      Personal and collective interests, due to the fact that TQM will 
use part of my land on lot 1316 or the contiguous lands to my lot 
1316, 1323, 1324, Rang 9, Canton de Hatley, according to their choice 
of route that has not been defined.  TQM is presenting a very 
controversial project and that has not been defined, that can send 
shivers through your skin, when you look at the data more closely as 
provided by the promoters and others, particularly when it comes to 
safety. 

      Negative impact for all the citizens concerned, directly or 
indirectly, by these components such as pipes that are six hundred and 
ten (610) millimetres in depth, six point seven (6.7) millimetres 
thick, in an agricultural area, depth of the burial of the pipe, about 
five hundred (500) millimetres in a forest area. 

      Page 2, reference negative impact, replacement parts, different 
operating pressure, danger of human error, because identification 
number identical, defined on appendix 5.2, repair and replacement 
material all start in the same place.  A too long time for 
intervention, because decision centre too far, particularly on 
weekends. 

      Safe zone for residential construction of all kinds, non-defined 
for reasons of economy; non-respect of their direct and indirect 
responsibilities such as loss of value of lands near the pipeline.  
Distance problem of insurance of property and civil liability in the 
safe distance margin non-defined; hidden prejudices with respect to 
the distance to be respected for the construction that could be 
defined by the provincial government, or the regional government, or 
municipal government. 

      Price in case of sale caused by too wide a servitude, permission 
always to be asked from TQM for work to be done.  They even have the 
power to stop any crossing of the pipeline. 

      Reference 3, page 3, limited gas reserves, we have been told 
that there is some amount of gas coming from the west; possibility of 
transporting other materials other than natural gas, for example, 
leachate from the waste water treatment plant and the waste disposal 
site:  PCB contaminated oil and others, non-corrosive acid when not in 
contact with oxygen; water with heavy metal such as mercury, lead, and 
radioactive.  

      Prejudicial explanation on the risks by promoter, we are told 
that there could be an explosion or other one (1) time out of ten 
thousand (10,000) in one hundred (100) years, if that happens.  

      Yet, if you consult National Energy Board, page 107, based on 
the length in kilometres of any pipeline in Canada and the small 
number of major and minor accidents, pages 102, 103 of the same book, 
given the reasons for fissure by SCC, twenty-two (22) accidents, and 
page 101, percentage, seventeen percent (17%) due to same problem, and 
the average of one hundred percent (100%) of all kinds of accidents 
contradicts in practice the theoretical data of the promoters. 

      So, fourth reference, negative impact, accidents due to 1 CC, 
sixty-eight percent (68%) natural gas declared, company other than or 
subsidiary of TCPL, this means that sometimes a company can change and 
become a chameleon.  Well, companies are chameleon.  They can change 
quite often.  They have all kinds of names. 

      Two (2) line damages, five (5) perforations leading to leaks, 
these are other companies other than Trans Canada Pipeline.  Trans 
Canada Pipeline, seven (7) line damages, one (1) perforation leading 
to leaks; of this, six (6) damages in Ontario.  

      In conclusion, TQM should be banished from our environment.  
They can go elsewhere such as the Highwater, Vermont route, or develop 
the project through others, such as those from the west who recommend 
the ocean, or the New Brunswick and Maine route.  Yours respectfully, 
Marius Cloutier. 



THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Thank you very much, Mr. Cloutier, for your presentation, what 
do you mean about the possibility of transporting leachate and so on 
and so forth?  What the heck do you mean by that?  Where do you get 
that from? 

MR. MARIUS CLOUTIER: 

      Well, if you take the example of ash from U.S. plants, U.S. 
plants that - well, the ashes have certain heavy metals.  Right now, 
in Quebec, they are carried by trucks for spraying, because it says 
that it improves the farm yield.   

      Well, the fear there is that if you take the Three Mile Island 
plant, when there was a leak, if the clean-up of this plant is done 
with water, and it could be transported on this same pipeline, that 
means that you could have water with radioactive material that could 
be transported, because certain companies can have disintoxication 
centres for our materials. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      But this transportation would be done intentionally, you think? 

MR. MARIUS CLOUTIER: 

      Yes, quietly. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Have you read or discovered any precedents of this sort? 

MR. MARIUS CLOUTIER: 

      Well, precedents, when you are told that, in St-Basile, you had 
PCB warehouses that were hidden, not disclosed to the public, and even 
the government was quite surprised to find that there were all kind of 
PCB's hidden everywhere in hospitals. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Yes, I understand that, but you are talking about transportation 
via a pipeline. 



MR. MARIUS CLOUTIER: 

      Well, look, a hundred (100) years ago, you could not imagine 
seeing these materials being transported with horses and barrels.  
Today, it is transported by truck. In the future, according to TQM and 
other companies, other gas companies, they are saying that the future 
lies in transportation via pipelines. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Mr. Cloutier. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      On page 4 of your brief, you refer to the National Energy Board, 
page 107, with respect to accidents.  And then --

MR. MARIUS CLOUTIER: 

      You mean page 3? 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      Yes, okay, it is on page 3, sorry.  You refer to documents of 
the National Energy Board with respect to the number of accidents.  
And at the end, you say that, in practice, this contradicts the 
theoretical data.  Could you amplify this point a little bit? 

MR. MARIUS CLOUTIER: 

      Well, in Ontario right now, if you look at only accidents that 
occurred in Ontario on the Trans Canada pipeline route, there have 
been eight (8) accidents on a line of about five to six hundred (5-
600) kilometers.   Now, if you see that there was a rupture in two (2) 
places that are about fifteen (15) to twenty (20) kilometres apart, 
now, for these people, the number of years, days means nothing.  The 
accidents took place.  I don't know if you are following my reasoning. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      Well, in part. 




MR. MARIUS CLOUTIER: 

      So, if you take into account unreported accidents, because when 
I went to the -when I attended the hearing in Magog, they talked about 
a defective valve on Rang 11, and it was repaired.  I don't know if 
that was recorded in the files as a defective instrument or a problem 
on the line.  

      In Alberta, Trans Canada Pipeline was forced to replace one (1) 
full kilometre of pipes before they had an accident.  So, as far as I 
am concerned, this is a minor incident, but that caused major expenses 
for Trans Canada Pipeline.  

      And, for me, it is something that can be calculated in terms of 
the risks of accidents, because you need "x" number of minor accidents 
for it to become a major accident.  If you take an average of ten (10) 
minor accidents for one (1) major accident, the problem is therefore 
much more significant than what is mentioned in the books. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      Thank you. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Thank you very much, Mr. Cloutier, for your testimony.  I call 
on Mrs. Rose Bogo and Mr. Amalio Zuri. 

MRS. ROSE BOGO: 

      Mr. President, Commissioners, good evening, we are members of a 
coalition formed following this project and owners of lots 215 located 
in the City of Granby and 873 in Bromont, which are a part of the land 
registry of the Canton de Shefford. 

      We disagree not so much with the project in itself, but with the 
way that TQM has acted, showing a total lack of in-depth study and a 
lack of professionalism.  We are also in total disagreement with the 
route proposed by TQM for the following reasons. 

      We are very concerned, because the pipeline will go through the 
two (2) water courses on our farm, namely Beaudry and Guay.  These 
water courses have served as a source of drinking water and a vital 
source of water for our herd.  

      Since these water courses already have a low flow, we are afraid 
that the construction and passage of a pipeline could have a negative 
impact or even dry up this source of water.  Accordingly, we demand 
that the directional drilling method be used, and at the same time 
minimize the impact on the banks, river banks. 

      In addition, the pipeline route goes through our white pine, 
which is a structuring element on our farm.  It is the only tree in 
our prairie, what we call our "prairie du pin blanc", our white pine 
prairie, that has been around forever and is part of our heritage, and 
it provides a shade for our cattle.  And this is very important, 
especially in the summer. 

      Now, in the event that we are forced to build a shelter - well, 
perhaps this is something that is quite banal for the promoters, but, 
for us, it is a big concern - we have to obtain a permit from the 
municipality.  We have to pay for the materials, construction 
materials, the labour, and pay land taxes forever, property taxes 
forever. 

      What would TQM offer in replacement of this structuring element 
for our farm, which will have to be erected outside the pipeline right 
of way, because we cannot build anything on the right of way itself?  
What are we going to do?  Are we building this kind of thing in the 
middle of a beautiful area?  Is that going to be in harmony with the 
environment? 

      Our farm already has a servitude from Hydro Quebec and Gaz 
Metropolitain. During the passage of the Metropolitain Inter-Cité 
pipeline in 1983, we were strongly opposed to this project.  There was 
no possibility of deviating the line for it to follow that of Hydro 
Quebec.  We were told it was very hard to get them to follow the same 
Hydro Quebec corridor at the time.  However, Gaz Inter-Cité served us 
with papers from the Expropriation Tribunal.  I even have copies of 
that right now for your information.  At the time, we went through a 
lot of stress and worry. 

      This time around, we are not going to let them impose a third 
corridor on our farm, which represents years of hard labour for 
ridiculous amounts of money that, in no way, make up for all the 
inconveniences and damage caused by TQM in the short term and, 
particularly, in the long term. 

      I should say, by the way, that it is not really a matter of 
money for us.  We are not interested at all in this particular route. 

      In the PPU of the City of Granby, our farm is classified as a 
recreational and tourism source.  A part of the farm has already - a 
vocation of the part of the farm has already been changed, and now has 
a residential development of about sixty (60) acres. So, out of the 
entire farm, we have got sixty (60) acres that have several 
residences, about twenty (20). 

      With all this potential, and particularly because of its 
strategic location, it is quite obvious, and I can tell you also that, 
as a certified broker, I can assure you that three (3) corridors of 
servitudes crossing a property are elements that help depreciate the 
market value of the property and reduce its resale potential. 

      And I should say, by the way, that I would like to know the 
comments of our promoters, if they were in a similar position, i.e. 
what would they think about the market value of their property, if 
they had three (3) corridors of servitudes going through their 
properties.  So that they can talk about the residual value and all 
kinds of things, but there is nobody in this room who is going to 
convince me that when you have these kinds of servitudes on a 
property, the market value of the property and the resale potential 
are not affected.  That, I am convinced of that, and I can provide 
evidence to show that. 

      Now, with respect to job creation by this project, we are 
wondering why the welders and other workers will come from, the pipes, 
and how many permanent jobs will really be created.  

      Now, according to official sources, the Magnola project would be 
delayed one (1) year, and will probably never be carried out.  It 
seems that, after a study, this project was too costly compared with 
its profitability.  So, we are wondering then where are all the 
economic spin-offs that TQM Gaz was talking about, and why aren't they 
adopting a route other than that proposed? 

      We would like to conclude our presentation here, because we 
could continue like this forever.  Since TQM has submitted only one 
(1) route with which we are in disagreement, we recommend that TQM be 
creative and opt for other routes, including the former Montreal 
Pipeline systems, or Sable Island, or the M & NE project, or that of 
Tatham Off Shore.  

      Either way, I can tell you, Mr. Chair and Commissioners, 
anywhere on this planet, but not on our property and not in our 
beautiful region of the Eastern Townships.  There are too many things 
that will disrupt our beautiful quality of life and environment that 
we have right now.  So, it is a very short presentation, but I think 
it pretty much expresses our fears and the reasons why we are totally 
in disagreement with this route, which is being imposed on us.  So, 
any questions, Mr. Zuri would be answering them.  

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Thank you very much, your brief is quite short, but your motives 
are quite clear. With respect to directional drilling, you say you 
want directional drilling to be done.  What is the length?  Over what 
length? 

MR. AMALIO ZURI: 

      Perhaps thirty (30), forty (40) feet or maybe ten (10) metres or 
so. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Mrs. Bogo, you say that you could provide evidence to convince 
us of the depreciation of your market value. 

MRS. ROSE BOGO: 

      Yes, I started doing some research in terms of checking with all 
different sales that have been made, but I think it is just simple 
common sense.  Since I work in different types of properties, it is 
very clear.  Here, we are told that, well, you could have, you know, 
the use of fruit on your property, which you are still using. 

      But I am thinking specifically in our case that, at some point, 
we had put our property in a land expropriation, because we had other 
recreational and touristic projects. But I can tell you that if 
another - we put that on hold, but if another corridor goes through 
our farm, it is not going to be very attractive for future 
developments.  I am sure it is going to reduce the resell price.  
That's for sure. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      But I am more interested in the evidence that you have 

MRS. ROSE BOGO: 

      Well, I could provide them to you.  I didn't have enough time, 
unfortunately, to bring them with me. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Well, if you have anything that you can file, that would help 
us. 

MRS. ROSE BOGO: 

      Well, I could pick up some documentation and things and send 
them to you. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Okay, that would help us; Mr. Paré. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying in 
your brief, because, in the first portion, you seem to say that if 
there were some changes, for example, directional drilling, they 
avoided your white pine, the project would be acceptable.  And then, 
you conclude by saying that not only should the project not go through 
your land, but another route completely should be selected. 

MRS. ROSE BOGO: 

      Are you talking to me? 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      Well, I'm talking to both of you. 

MRS. ROSE BOGO: 

      Well, if we are in a situation where it is inevitable, well, 
these are things that we want to protect, because our water course 
already has a low flow, and that's the only place where our animals 
can get drinking water.  Now, however, if we had our preference, the 
route would not go anywhere near our land, because we see that there 
are other options, and I pointed them out at the end.  So, our first 
choice would be that. If we are in a position where we are really 
stuck, then these are important things that we want to protect. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      Okay, that's clear, thank you. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Mr. Cloutier. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      Just a clarification, at the end of your first page, you refer 
to the PPU.  I guess it is the programme particulier d'urbanisme. 

MR. AMALIO ZURI: 

      Yes, it is part of the City of Granby. 

MRS. ROSE BOGO: 

      It is planification de l'urbanisme, which is urban planning. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      At the beginning, you talked about lots 215 and 873 in the 
cadastre of the Canton de Shefford.  I have trouble understanding. 

MR. AMALIO ZURI: 

      Lot 215 is part of the City of Granby, and lot 873 is a part of 
the City of Bromont. It is right on the border between the two (2) 
municipalities. 

MRS. ROSE BOGO: 

      But the two (2) are officially called Cadastre du Canton de 
Shefford, even though they are not in Shefford. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      Okay, thank you, but here you refer to - you talk about a 
residential development of about sixty (60) acres.  So, you have built 
about twenty (20) units so far.  Was this residential project by the 
promoter in the location of their route? 

MR. AMALIO ZURI: 

      No, it is right at the edge of the farm on lot 77 that was part 
of - it was not in an agricultural zone. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      But is your development project compromised by this route, by 
the pipeline? 

MR. AMALIO ZURI: 

      No, it does not affect our residential construction. 

MRS. ROSE BOGO: 

      But, anyway, I can add something.  Right now, the development of 
the white-zoned area which is in the Canton de Shefford, but when we 
did this residential development, we had roads going through the green 
part, and we had planned to go on with the second and third phases of 
this project.  Also, we are adjacent to - well, we think there is a 
potential of using the land adjacent for other things other than 
farming. 

      So, we are thinking about potential in the future.  I know that, 
for the promoters and perhaps for the BAPE, too, these are things that 
are not concrete, but, for me, I can say that since we are talking 
about perpetual servitudes, you also have to consider the potential of 
a property, eventual uses of a property.  

      Obviously, the pipeline is not going through the - where the 
pipeline goes through right now, there are no houses there right now, 
but we had a phase 2 and a phase 3 in mind.  So, I mean if a pipeline 
goes through, it is going to affect those phases. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      Are those phases that you are talking about known by the 
promoter? 

MRS. ROSE BOGO: 

      No, we did not make it official, but it is not known by the 
promoter. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      Thank you very much. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Thank you very much, lady and gentleman, and I call on Mr. Guy 
Fortier, good evening. 

MR. GUY FORTIER: 

      Good evening, Mr. President, Mr. Commissioners, since we are 
running really late, I have a very short brief, which I am presenting 
today, and I hope it expresses what I have experienced as a citizen 
accorded by Trans Quebec Maritime, a promoter of the Eastern 
Townships' pipeline project. 

      In May, I receive a letter inviting me to Ayer's Cliff on the 
25th of the same month for an information session, where they were 
going to explain to us the nature of the project, the pipeline route, 
and the financial compensation that would be offered to owners that 
are directly affected.  Up until today, I have learned that the public 
relation strategies at TQM have opted for a strategy of saying the 
least possible or, more precisely, to sing the praises of the project, 
or to minimize the negative impact. 

      This, in fact, shows the arrogance with which the promoter has 
presented his project.  To listen to their spokespersons, you get the 
impression that the decision to build the pipeline in the Eastern 
Townships has already been taken, and there is no possible appeal, and 
it is the same for the route. 

      I remember that TQM is a powerful and rich company that, above 
all, is part of a cartel, which includes its partners: Hydro Quebec 
and Gaz Metro.  As if this was not enough, this club of multi-
billionaires enjoys the support of the Government of Quebec, because 
this project of a pipeline in the Eastern Townships is part of the 
vast movement of freeing up the energy market and the dream of making 
Quebec a hub for the gas network in North America. 

      Faced with these high stakes, I am well aware that the problems 
of a citizen are not - they just don't add up, but I would like to 
remind you that, by living in Ste-Catherine de Hatley, myself and my 
family realized a dream, a dream of living in an exceptional 
environment far from industrial and urban activities to enjoy the 
exceptional beauty of this part of the country in all peace and 
tranquility. 

      I can't tell you what a joy it is to see my children grow and 
fulfil themselves in this corner of the country.  I can't tell you.  
It is this dream which is being threatened by this project of the 
pipeline, and I am not the only citizen in this region to react in 
this way. 

      I also have more long-term worries.  The farm that we live on 
covers a hundred (100) acres, and it is a piece of land situated in 
the green zone.  What is going to happen if, in ten (10) or twenty 
(20) years, there is a change in zoning, which would give the 
possibility to people to build houses for our three (3) children?  
Then, we will have to get permission from the TQM?  Will they not 
invoke the fact that the pipeline is so close that it is impossible or 
inadvisable to do any new construction, given that the proposed route, 
in fact, is going to border almost two (2) complete sides of my 
property? 

      TQM can bring to the table the best technical experts and all 
their public relations people with flowery language in order to 
convince us of their environmental virtue, but common sense tells me 
that a pipeline, which has got a twenty-three (23) metre right of way 
which is situated right beside my house, must lower the value of the 
property, and especially lower and undermine the quality of life.  And 
it is not the beautiful carpet of lawn which is going to cover the 
pipeline, according to the coloured slide which they showed us, which 
is going to convince me of the contrary. 

      Of course, first, there is going to be the work itself with all 
the heavy machinery and helicopter flights, low-flying helicopters, in 
order to regularly check on the installations.  There is going to be 
maintenance works without any doubt, and what more? How will we know 
in advance when the promoter is going to have a perpetual servitude? 

      In spite all the promises, what can guarantee us that a second 
pipeline is going to come and be out in a couple of years that TQM 
foresaw in their initial contract?  Who can assure us that TQM will 
not come to sell one day their right of way to another company 
specialized in the transportation of synthetic or chemical products, 
such as liquid hydrogen or even drinking water?  Such a company, 
therefore, could invoke their own needs in order to justify the 
addition of one or more pipelines or energy infrastructures. 

      I am all the more loath to believe the promoter or its 
spokespersons, when, during the first part of the public hearings, 
they have been so evasive.  They skated, and slid around, and 
carefully avoided giving specific responses to concrete questions.  
Curiously, the answers were always going to come later on. 

      For example, how come a promoter decided that the pipeline would 
go right close to the Ayer's Cliff quarry without having seriously 
studied the force of dynamiting and the importance of the vibrations 
that this might provoke?  

      Did they ask for the list of the industrial clients of 
Coaticook, who have been approached by the promoter and who have, in 
fact, demonstrated an interest in converting to gas?  Such a list 
obviously doesn't exist, but the interest, of course, is very great.  
The response to this question, however, was unimportant, when we know 
that the will to branch Coaticook constitutes one of the arguments 
justifying having this pipeline go through the Eastern Townships. 

      Other stakeholders having pointed out this problem before, me, I 
am not going to talk very much about the promoter's attitude, who 
visited several times properties without any permission, as if he was 
already the owner of the property. 

      Lastly, I would like to remind the Commission that, for certain 
people, the summer period is the period of vacation, whereas, for 
other people, notably for farmers, it is a period in which they are 
the busiest of the whole year.  People simply don't have the time to 
draft these briefs in the summer.  I furthermore wrote about this to 
the Minister of the Environment and the Fauna, Mr. David Cliche, and 
you will find a copy of this letter appended to my brief. 

      I must add that several citizens object in principle even to the 
passing of a pipeline in the Eastern Townships, but they feel helpless 
when faced with the exercise of writing a brief or simply of having to 
speak out in public. 

      In the light of what precedes, in conclusion, you will not be 
astonished that I object totally to the passing of a pipeline through 
the Eastern Townships.  Over the last twenty (20) years, important 
efforts have been made to develop the enormous "récréo-touristique" 
potential of our region.  This potential is essentially based on the 
beauty of the environment and the tranquility that people find here, 
as proves the enormous number of people from Montreal and the United 
States, who have acquired secondary residences here. 

      If I trust my own anguish and the anguish that I can perceive in 
my neighbours faced with the perspective of living in the 
neighbourhood of a pipeline, I believe very profoundly that a project 
like the one that is envisaged by TQM will compromise our remarkable 
quality of life. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      So, the Commission has certainly noted your comments, your 
analysis, and your arguments.  Concerning the threat of a second 
pipeline, you know that the promoter has officially committed 
themselves to the fact that there is not going to be any second 
pipeline in the same right of way.  Do I understand, however, that you 
don't give much credibility to this statement? 

MR. GUY FORTIER: 

      I don't think that I give any credibility to this statement.  
However, the promoter, with his twenty-three (23) metre wide right of 
way with just a single pipeline in it, what's going to happen later, 
if, for instance, they sell the right of way to another company?  

      In four (4) or five (5), six (6), eight (8) years, they can come 
and say to the government:  We need this.  We have to get another 
product going through.  We need another pipeline.  We have no choice.  
Lookit, we are environmentally correct, and we are not going to start 
cutting a right of way through other territories.   We already have a 
right of way, and there will be other hearings. 

      And that's what we believe, the citizens, because the corridor 
is already going to be there.  It has already been clear cut.  That's 
one of the worries that we have.  We don't say that they have this in 
mind now, but, personally, we believe it.  That's what we think. 





THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Thank you; Mr. Paré.  So, thank you for your presentation, Mr. 
Fortier.  I would now call the Association for the Protection of Lake 
Massawippi, Mr. Michel Clairoux and Mr. Bernard Lapointe.  Okay, we 
are listening. 

MR. BERNARD LAPOINTE: 

      Good evening, I was going to say goodnight rather than good 
evening.  Mr. President or Mr. Chairman and Mr. Commissioners, I would 
like to introduce myself, Bernard Lapointe.  I'm in public relations 
for the Association for the Protection of Lake Massawippi, and I'm 
accompanied by the President of the Association, Mr. Michel Clairoux. 

      First off, I would like to say that the Association is not 
against sustainable development, but they would like to let the Bureau 
d'audiences publiques (inaudible) its worries, its concerns, and its 
apprehensions.  Therefore, I am going to present the Association, 
first of all, and Mr. Clairoux will then present the problem and our 
worries that we see. 

      The Association for the Protection of Lake Massawippi was 
founded in 1968 by the waterfront residents.  Our goal is to maintain 
the quality of the water, as well as to inform and educate the 
population about pollution problems.  The Association is interested in 
controlling the erosion of the banks of the lake and the protection of 
the fauna and the flora. 

      Since its foundation in 1968, the Association has worked on 
scientific studies in order to measure the quality of the water and to 
control the harmful effects of pollution. This non-profit association 
carries out its activities thanks to the generous donations of its 
members.  Amongst with us, we have four hundred (400) dues paying 
members, as well as the active cooperation and support of the 
municipalities around the lake:  Ayer's Cliff, Canton de Hatley, North 
Hatley, Ste-Catherine-de-Hatley and Hatley. 

      And now, I am going to let the President of the Association 
present the problem to you. 

MR. MICHEL CLAIROUX: 

      This evening, to be very brief, we are going to attack one major 
problem. Obviously, there is a lot of other (inaudible) the great 
natural beauty of our region, the Eastern Townships.  Everybody who 
has seen Lake Massawippi or the Tomifobia River knows how it is 
beautiful, and it is  natural obviously. 

      If we look at the proposed route of the pipeline, one thing that 
is very striking is that the route is going to go through a very 
sensitive zone, a very fragile zone, as you have probably found in 
other regions of Quebec, which we also find in Vermont.  

      The Tomifobia is the main tributary of Lake Massawippi.  And 
when I read the documentation which is available at the back of room, 
this documentation comes from -
 I am not sure - from the Province of Quebec or from the promoter.  
But when we read this documentation, they talk to us about the 
Tomifobia River.  We see it is the route of the river.  

      What we have to understand is that we see on the maps, it is 
very clear that these maps have been made in the summer.  It is a 
little river which flows slowly.  We also see that it is a river which 
is very meandering.  There are many areas where there are, in fact, 
loops in the river.  So, it seems to be no big deal to cut across this 
river.  However, in the reports, it is mentioned that there is a 
potential danger of erosion.  That is mentioned somewhere in the 
reports. 

      What I want to say to you is that the Tomifobia River is 
affected by a major problem of erosion.  This whole region is affected 
by spring flooding.  We even have considerable flooding.  All the 
sinuous meandering route of the river means that the river changes its 
bed.  There are several different maps that are available.  You can 
see that the river changes riverbeds over the decades.  The river 
isn't exactly the same.  It doesn't follow exactly the same route as 
it did ten (10) or twenty (20) or thirty (30) years ago. 

      When we started as an association, this is a river which is a 
water supply of Lake Massawippi.  It is the most important river in 
terms of the water volume.  When we first started studying this river 
in 1993, we measured the rate of sediments after an abundant rain.  We 
realized that - I have figures here - two hundred and ninety-two (292) 
tons of earth are moved in twenty-four (24) hours.  That's more than 
ten (10) real trucks of earth. This is after they have heavy rains.  
You can imagine during the spring flooding that the earth, which is 
moved, is even much greater than that. 

      Resulting from this major erosion of the banks of the river, 
which is due to various causes, but there is a problem of major 
erosion, and obviously all this land goes into the river and is then 
carried along to the end where the river empties into the lake.  And 
there is a problem of sanding up of Lake Massawippi, which leads to 
enormous problems in terms of the circulation of boats and for various 
people, who have cottages.  The water is extremely dirty in this 
river. 

      So, what I'm trying to explain to you is the Tomifobia River 
experiences a major problem of erosion, especially in this sector, and 
it is not very clear in the report that I consulted.  It's the whole 
sector around Ayer's Cliff and Stanstead East, and the part of the 
river around Stanstead is the worst area for erosion.  And when I see 
this problem, as I was saying to you a little while ago, we should 
have seen the maps as they would be in the spring with all the 
flooding.  And you would see that it is not this tiny, little, 
insignificant river that we see on the maps here.  

      So, we are going to build a major infrastructure in land where 
there is often flooding, where there is already a problem of 
considerable erosion.  So, I have a lot of worries and concerns about 
such a project.  That's a main fear that we have in terms of this 
project.  We should be very clear about that. 

      We know that Lake Massawippi is a reservoir of drinking water 
for several cities located around the lake, including Waterville which 
is much further away.  And so, we can imagine the kind of problems 
that this may lead to over the long term.  Is the company going to be 
able to resolve these problems if the phenomenon of erosion continues 
to exist?  

      As well, we know that, on the river, there are a considerable 
number of dead trees blocking various portions of it.  As soon as we 
see one, we have the municipalities take these dead trees out, but 
there is one which is enormous.  It creates a kind of wall about eight 
(8) feet high, and it is pretty close to the spot where the pipeline 
will go through. And we have great difficulty in getting to it with 
heavy machinery, because there is a lot of swamps and so on.  

      So, we can imagine that if the pipeline is installed there, what 
kind of problems there will be in terms of erosion.  It destabilizes 
the banks.  It is going to create problems of dead trees and 
blockages.  Access will be very difficult.  So, there are several 
problems which are not stated here, and there are no solutions for 
these problems. 

      So, as an association, we are concerned.  We are worried about 
the idea of a pipeline being built in an area where there is flooding, 
where there is a problem of serious erosion.  We think it is massive 
as a risk for the Lake Massawippi.  

      What could we recommend?  We could recommend another route.  It 
is clear that if the route is going in another part of the river.  We 
know that the river close to the American frontier, for instance, near 
Aucton and Rock Island, there are less swamps, less looping and 
meandering of the river.  

      As well, there are other solutions.  Other people have talked 
about the fact that there are other rights of way, other corridors and 
I would certainly support these other alternatives.  And I think that 
we can finish here by saying that we support the position of the 
Memphremagog MRC and the General Council on Environment of the Eastern 
Townships, which is opposed to the pipeline project, mainly because I 
mentioned a little while ago, the ecological damages that this kind of 
infrastructure can create in a region such as the Eastern Townships. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Thank you, sir, so, if I understand properly, there are already 
serious problems of erosion, but you think that the arrival of a 
pipeline would simply increase these problems. 

MR. MICHEL CLAIROUX: 

      Any kind of work which is going to destabilize the banks, which 
are already very unstable, are going to create problems of erosion.  
The river changes its riverbed decade by decade.  It isn't mentioned, 
but if we look at the maps of the river which were done twenty (20) 
years ago or fifty (50) years ago, we would realize that the river 
isn't necessarily flowing there where it shows it flowing a certain 
number of years ago.  So, what is the pipeline going to do in terms of 
these problems of erosion, with the problems of flooding?  I don't 
have any idea. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Mr. Paré. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      A little bit along the same lines, what you are worried about is 
mainly the problems that will be created at the time of construction. 

MR. MICHEL CLAIROUX: 

      For me, it is clear that we apprehend the problems that would be 
created by construction, but it is very clear that a river which is 
flooded, which is in a major case of flooding every twenty-five (25) 
years, and a few years ago, where the situation was the whole of the 
territory was flooded, there is enormous...  The river resituates 
itself in a different riverbed.  We can imagine the kind of problems 
that it is going to cause.  And this land, which is eroded, is all 
dry, because it is a lake, but at the moment of the construction, we 
can imagine.  In construction where if they didn't do adequate 
measuring, we can also imagine.  Sometimes work is done in a very 
sensitive river, and one can take precautions. 




MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      What you are saying, however, is that you think that there could 
be reoccurring problems with the changes in the bed of the river.  As 
you said yourself, it is a region which is sensitive, fragile.  

MR. MICHEL CLAIROUX: 

      It is swamps that we have around here.  So, if there is any kind 
of major infrastructure construction, it leads to problems.  For us, 
the great concern is erosion. With the land being dragged into the 
river, there are problems such as erosion in other regions across the 
world, in Vermont, as I mentioned a little while ago.  And it is 
always frustrating to hear that the State of Vermont has refused this.  
We hear this.  It has refused approval for this pipeline because of 
its wetland problems, the same problem that we have here.  It is a 
sector which is very, very bad for Lake Massawippi. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      Okay, but let's come back to Quebec for the purposes of this 
inquiry.  There are other places where we had to build certain 
infrastructures, whether it be railroads or roads in similar 
circumstances or in similar situations.  I agree with you that you 
have to take special measures, both when you build these 
infrastructures and afterwards for the maintenance, but is it not 
possible to envisage, for example, that either through the way of 
building this infrastructure or by through controlled measures --

MR. MICHEL CLAIROUX: 

      Is it possible, is what you are asking, to do all that?  It is 
possible perhaps, but I am sure you must agree with me that it is 
going to require, at the time of the construction, a very particular 
attention in order not to, in any way, disturb the natural 
environment.  

      Because from what I read in the report, I noticed that there is 
absolutely no mention of it.  And it is going to require such special 
attention, and special techniques, and methods to make sure it doesn't 
cause any problems.  And how is the maintenance going to be done, the 
follow-up work?  

      The river that you see there, perhaps in fifty (50) years, it 
won't be exactly running along the same riverbed.  So, they are going 
to have to do such a study on this.  As far as I am concerned, if I 
was going to put a pipeline through, I wouldn't put it through that 
way.  It would be much further down south, where I think there would 
be many fewer problems. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      I would like to come back to something which you said a little 
bit earlier on in your brief.  I think it is very interesting when you 
talk about what has happened after they have heavy rains.  You, 
perhaps not you, but the government or other people, have you started 
to do measuring work in order to be able to minimize - have you 
started to take certain measures in order to minimize this kind of 
impact? 

MR. MICHEL CLAIROUX: 

      This is a problem that exists in many rivers in Quebec.  The 
River Tomifobia is a river, which is about fifty (50), sixty (60) 
kilometres long.  The main sector of major evolution is Ayer's Cliff 
and Stanstead East, a little bit Aucton, but it is certainly about 
thirty (30) kilometres.  It is considerable.  There are a lot of 
measures which can be taken, but it is mainly a matter of working with 
- you know, it's swamps and agricultural land. So, you have to work 
with the agricultural sector, for instance, planting trees or not 
cutting down the trees that are there, trying to make sure that 
vegetation is restarted. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      And perhaps water basin management, something like that. 

MR. MICHEL CLAIROUX: 

      Exactly. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Thank you, gentlemen, and we are now in the period of 
rectification; Mr. Jean Trudelle, please. 

MR. JEAN TRUDELLE: 

      Mr. Chairman, Mr. Commissioners, a correction concerning what 
was said yesterday in terms of the number of accidents in the verbatim 
of June 21st, when I mentioned there was no mortal accidents on a TQM 
network, I specified twice in the introductory paragraph that it was 
in terms of the pipeline situated in the Province of Quebec.  

      It was mentioned in one of the briefs the different routes of a 
difference in the route of eighty-five (85) kilometres.  In the 
Highwater to East Hereford route, there is a difference of fifty-eight 
(58) kilometres, as indicated in the document DM-71.  

      Also, we talk about a reduction in the United States of ten 
point three (10.3) miles between the two (2) routes, whereas, in fact, 
it is reducing it by fifty-nine (59) kilometres as specified in the 
same document.  And twenty (20) kilometres of this comes from a 
reduction of the main trunk, and thirty-one (31) kilometres from the 
lateral trunks to Waussau Paper and Crown Vantage.  

      Also, a correction concerning the problems of water supply in 
South Stukely, always according to the documents filed by the MEF, 
which indicate there is a water supply problem since 1972, and it 
hasn't, in any way, been decided that the building of the pipeline in 
1982 was responsible for the problems, and that we never received any 
-
 in fact, Gaz Metropolitain never received any complaint from the 
municipality of Stukely Sud after the pipeline was built. 

      Now, the representatives of TQM have never said that the project 
was already accepted.  I participated at several information meetings, 
and I never mentioned that the project was already accepted.  As well, 
concerning what Mr. Roger Sénécal said was related to he who said that 
it was already passed this project, Mr. Sénécal has affirmed to us 
that he has never said something.  He is going to send us a sworn 
statement to this effect. 

      We talked about "senteur" at the distribution centres in Stukely 
Sud, the smells rather.  They have to talked to us about the smells 
around the distribution centre.  This is not normal, and we are going 
to have to make sure that the maintenance teams make sure that the 
smells disappear.  Normally, there is a high chimney, which must heat 
the gas before it is released.  This is a boiler chimney, which 
doesn't have any smell.  It is a smell which comes from the heating up 
of the gas.  And the distribution position in East Hereford and 
Stukely Sud is that, East Hereford, there is no odour.  There is no 
boiler to heat up the gas, as already mentioned. 

      Now, we are talking about the pressure of the pipeline, which 
could go up to eighteen (18) million PCP's, and it is mentioned 
already in the study.  This is an impact study.  It is also mentioned 
there is no regulation for the conductive basins.  We conform with the 
regulations that exist concerning this, and we can give you the 
details of our methodology in our impact studies. 

      In terms of the municipal taxes, it is clear that these taxes 
are paid directly to the municipality based on the value of the 
pipeline, and these are determined by the law on municipal taxation. 

      A correction also in terms of the thickness, we said that it was 
going to be a six point seven (6.7) millimetre wide pipeline.  It is 
going to be seven point nine (7.9) millimetres.  We have talked about 
the fact that it is going to be nine hundred (900) millimetres 
underground in wooded areas.  

      We talked about transporting other material other than natural 
gas, but the natural gas transportation is heavily regulated, and we 
can't transport anything else than what we have been given a licence 
to transport.  

      All the workers on the pipeline will come from Quebec. 

      And, finally, and I want to repeat this, the extension of a 
conduct from Windsor is not an alternative for supplying Magnola.  In 
order to supply Magnola Industries, we need a conduct in Quebec. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      So, these rectifications are about facts, and there was facts 
and data.  And I would invite anybody else who wants to use their 
right of rectification to correct facts; Mr. Yves Robert. 

MR. YVES ROBERT: 

      Good evening, Mr. Chairman, it is just a comment concerning a 
telephone call that I received today.  After what Mr. Benoňt said, a 
project like one of this scope takes several years to become concrete.  
People talked about five (5) years ago.  

      My wife is going to be certified as a biological farmer.  Our 
farm has been transformed since we bought it in 1990.  Given that 
there may be work being done with heavy equipment, we know that this 
heavy equipment leaks oil regularly.  And during the filling up with 
fuel of this machinery, there is often diesel spills.  We are going to 
have to then decontaminate the soil underneath the pipeline.  

      The certification program takes three (3) years before it is 
possible to be certified. It is only in the fourth year when it is 
certified.  All that is going to take a whole other three (3) years to 
redo.  When we are talking about taking several years for projects, 
this is one of the reasons.  Now, we are talking about a project for a 
pipeline that we have only known about for one (1) year.  
      Mr. Chairman, spraying with chemical products in order to 
control regrowth along this pipeline is something that really, really 
scares me. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Mr. Jean-Guy Dépôt. 

MR. JEAN-GUY DÉPôT: 

      Good evening, Mr. Chair, Mr. Commissioners, I would like to 
table, as I just did, a map of the watersheds of the Eastern 
Townships, including the sub watersheds of the St-François River, 
which it should be pointed out, well, this watershed is the most 
significant of all the watersheds in the Eastern Townships, and there 
are four (4) of them. The St-François watershed alone covers a 
territory of ten thousand two hundred (10,200) square kilometres.  

      And earlier on, I was looking at where the pipeline will go 
through.  In the Eastern Townships, the pipeline will go through the 
two (2) Stukely's, completely to the left of the map that I just gave 
you, the Yamaska watershed.  And then, from the east of Lake Orford, 
it will go through three (3) sub watersheds of the St-François River.  
And it would then cross - well, at the end of the line, it will cross 
the region of East Hereford.  There, it will go through the Hall 
watershed, which flows into the United States. 

      So, I am tabling this map as requested by Mr. Cloutier last 
night. 

      Another point, if you don't mind, is that, further to the 
comments from Mr. Norman Benoňt earlier on regarding the technical and 
financial assistance that the citizens should obtain, I would like to 
inform the members of the Commission that such an assistance exists.  
Here, I have a copy of the supplement of the publication Écho 
Décision.  Unfortunately, I only have one (1) copy.  

      It talks about the exploitation of gas in Sable Island.  It is a 
twenty-six (26) page document published by the Société Environnement 
Politique (The Royal Society of Canada).  On page 10 - I'll make a 
photocopy for you, if you are interested - they say that, two hundred 
thousand dollars ($200,000.00) for the public, the Canadian 
Environmental Evaluation Agency has allocate a fund of two hundred 
thousand dollars ($200,000.00) for organizations of citizens to help 
them examine various aspects of environmental impact studies, and to 
present briefs to public hearings on the SOFP project, which is Sable 
Offshore Energy Project.  I could make a photocopy for you.  

      And if, one day, if the Quebec Government succeeds in better 
administering our taxes, maybe we will be able to get this kind of 
assistance from the Ministry of Environment and Wildlife.  That would 
be appreciated, because all these people you have got lining up from 
you are all volunteers, who have taken a lot of their time to do this. 

      Another point, they talked about erosion tonight, once again, 
erosion that affects our lakes and water courses.  Now, our friends on 
Lake Massawippi, Mr. Lapointe and Clairoux, talked about this earlier 
on.  We would like, through you, through the Commission that is, to 
have some regulations that already exist in certain states of the 
United States just south of here, south of our border. 

      They have regulations to the effect that, on each water course, 
private or public, we should have a sediment catheter of about twenty-
five (25) metres - I don't really have the specific wordings for this, 
anyway - of the waterway.  And this regulation or this catheter, which 
will capture sediments, would be emptied when necessary, and that 
would prevent sediments from going into the waterways. 

      I don't want to be wicked here, but, look, there are limits.  
Mr. Chair, this evening after supper, I made a special trip to the 
library, Memphremagog library, to go and photocopy pages 40 and 41.  
And I said I am not an expert, but I know how to read, and I will read 
the paragraph.  This is Mr. Trudelle speaking: 

      "At Gaz Metropolitain, we have got transmission systems that 
have been around since 1983.  We have never had any rupture.  We have 
had two (2) leaks, no fatal accidents". 

      And the important part which I underlined is, it is clearly 
written: 

      "And at Trans Canada Pipeline, they have transmission conduits 
since 1957, and there hasn't been any rupture, any leak, any fatal 
accident". 

      It seems to me that that is clear.  And I am tabling this 
document right here.  I mean should we rely - and I have the answer to 
the question that I asked.  Should we rely on the transcripts?  I have 
faith in these women, and I am sure that what is written here is 
exactly what was said.  Thank you. 

      And by the way, to close on a happier note, I would like to 
thank you, because this is the end.  Me, as President of the Regional 
Commission of the Eastern Townships, I would like to thank the members 
of the Commission for the patience that they have shown in coming here 
to listen to the concerns and comments of various stakeholders, who 
are affected by this pipeline project.  

      We very much appreciate your presence, and we hope that you are 
going to take into account all our comments, and we hope that we would 
get some satisfaction from your report in October. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Thank you very much, Mr. Dépôt; Mr. Raymond Cloutier. 

MR. RAYMOND CLOUTIER: 

      Good evening, I just want to rectify something said from the 
representative of the MEF yesterday evening, when he spoke at the end 
of the evening.  Following the comments made yesterday before this 
Commission by the representative of the MEF, the coalition of owners 
concerned by the pipeline would like to rectify what was said, our 
right of rectification. 

      Today, we have taken the time to reread the guideline and the 
notice on the eligibility or admissibility of the impact study 
regarding this TQM/PNGTS.  It seems that what the representative of 
MEF said regarding the primary components of natural and human 
environments likely to be described in an impact study, environmental 
impact study, on a gas line project do not appear in the impact study.  
As a result, the comments regarding the notice of admissibility of the 
impact study are, to all intents and purposes, without foundation.  

      They only mention regarding the primary components of the 
natural environment in the notice of eligibility or admissibility.  
And I'll invite you to read it, and I'm going to quote from it: 

      "Descriptive data sheets of river crossings will be completed to 
accompany the application for certification or authorization under 
Section 22". 

      This is on page 3, and it is Mr. Alain yesterday at the door, 
who told me to check this. 

      Mr. Chair, we found nowhere what the representative of the MEF 
said yesterday, because he said that there was an agreement that it 
could be tabled later on.  The coalition therefore maintains its 
affirmations and is happy to learn that there is no wetland in this 
project.  There are only rivers. 

      The second rectification, following our request to know why the 
promoter had not analyzed a second route of least impact, the MEF 
representative claimed that the promoter had analyzed the least impact 
route.  That's what he said.  We have trouble understanding what he 
said, because it seems to us that to do a comparison, you have to have 
two (2) corridors.  

      The promoter is doing a comparison between two (2) routes in the 
same corridor. We are aware that a starting point, Lachenaie, should 
be fixed, but, to have a real comparison, the promoter had to set a 
different point of entry in the United States and then analyze them to 
do a comparison.  If the point of entry in the United States is fixed, 
then there can't be any comparison.  

      So, we should understand here then that the promoter is 
analyzing the route using the same point of departure and the same 
point of entry.  Wouldn't it have been more efficient for the promoter 
to have two (2) separate corridors to be able to do a partial 
analysis?  

      For these reasons, we feel that the promoter has not followed 
the guidelines, and we would recommend that you, Mr. President, 
include this in your report, that the promoter did not comply with the 
directives.  Thank you. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Thank you, Mr. Cloutier; Mr. Norman Benoňt. 

MR. NORMAN BENOôT: 

      Thank you, Mr. President, I thought I was very clear in my 
presentation this evening when I said that the eighteen hundred 
(1,800) pounds that I was talking about was for PNGTS.  It is for 
owners in New Hampshire.  The owners in New Hampshire told us that it 
was PNGTS that told them this. 

      A second point is that TQM can say that they are not giving the 
impression that the project is a given.  However, they will have 
trouble denying from the fact that they have newspapers appearing in 
the papers saying:  "Extension of a pipeline towards the United 
States: Construction of project planned for May, 1998".  I am filing 
this.  Thank you. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Thank you; Mr. Marius Cloutier. 

MR. MARIUS CLOUTIER: 

      Mr. Chairman, in the report that I read, I referred to human 
error, and Mr. Trudelle, this evening, is a perfect example of that.  
The book that I have here in front of me is done by Trans Quebec 
Maritimes, i.e. TQM.  In appendix 5, page 1 of 5: 

      "Materials and Equipment Available: Safety pipe, inventory code 
number 096140...", 

      and I hope Mr. Trudelle will take good note of this, 

"...exterior diameter, six hundred and ten (610) millimetres; nuance 
and MPR, four forty-eight (448); thickness, six point seven (6.7) 
millimetres; length of the pipe, ninety-five (95) metres". 

      Now, unfortunately, I cannot table this, because I'm keeping it.  
It is a little Bible. They are part of the Commission's documents. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Thank you; Mr. Guy Fortier. 

MR. GUY FORTIER: 

      Mr. Trudelle has just told us that the pipeline is used only for 
the transmission of natural gas.  Did I understand him correctly? 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Yes, according to the regulations of the National Energy Board, 
that's what he said. 

MR. GUY FORTIER: 

      Is the law different for Montreal Pipeline?  Because we know 
that its primary use was the transmission of oil.  And then, that was 
converted into the transmission of natural gas.  And then, it has gone 
back to its initial mission of transmitting oil.  That's my question.  
Maybe we are not going to get an answer from the company, but, anyway, 
that was my question. 

      By the way, I wanted to add something.  The company says, 
through its public relations people, that there is almost no 
opposition in the Eastern Townships.  That's what they were saying in 
the newspapers, but that is TQM in person, really.  Thank you. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Thank you; Mr. Robert Boisvert. 

MR. ROBERT BOISVERT: 

      Good evening, I have some corrections.  The setting up in 1983 
of the first pipeline left a bitter taste in the mouths of the 
municipal authorities of South Stukely and in the mouths of most 
citizens, the primary issue related to the presence of municipal wells 
on lot 209, a few metres from the existing and proposed rights of way.  
Blasting in 1983 caused deviations in the underground water sources 
that supplied water to the wells.  This text was taken from the 
analysis report of the CPTAQ, Technical Services Branch.  Mr. 
President, this was filed with the Commission. 

      And the water problems we had in Stukely, I was aware of them.  
It was not water supply from the source.  That shouldn't be mistaken.  
It was due to a defect in the water system.  The promoter says we have 
always had water problems in Stukely because of the source.  No, we 
had a problem with the distribution.  So, we shouldn't be mistaken 
about that. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Thank you very much; Mrs. Lucie Roy-Alain. 

MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN: 

      Mr. President, Mr. Commissioners, I am really pissed off.  I 
don't know how this works.  I don't know where I have to start. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      All you can do now is rectify a fact or a statement. 

MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN: 

      Well, I don't know.  I will have to see the verbatims to be able 
to.  Anyway, I have already told you that we are little guys, and they 
are trying to crush us.  And I think that's exactly what's happening.  
With them, there is always risks of reprisals and so on.  

      I tell you that TQM is frustrated, because when I said publicly 
in East Hereford that I was against the project, they would have 
wanted the next day that we sign.  They could have told people:  Well, 
she is against, but she signed nevertheless, and that would have 
really played in their favour to sell the idea. 

      Now, to tell you the truth, we have got problems because of TQM, 
and we still haven't invited them to our place.  Usually, the people 
we want to invite, we usually - if we don't want them, we tell them 
get the hell out.  So, this is one more reason why we would like to 
tell them to go elsewhere. 

      My husband came to see you after a hearing in Coaticook, Mr. 
President, and he told you that at our place again.  He told you this.  
And you advised my husband that I should report those words in my 
brief.  I don't know if you remember that. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Yes, because hearsay or things that are said outside the session 
cannot be taken into consideration. 

MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN: 

      Alright, anyway, the words of Mr. Roger Sénécal, I believe, they 
have no more weight than those of my husband and myself.  There is, I 
mean, two (2) of us.  We all heard what he said.  I think maybe we can 
be mistaken.  You know, we can put a comma in the wrong place or 
maybe, you know, misinterpret certain things, but I can tell you that 
what he said was pretty much what I said. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Okay, thank you, I don't think we are going to engage in a 
debate here.  We have your reactions, and we have no reason for not 
believing you.  We have heard Mr. Trudelle, who --

MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN: 

      Well, all I want to say is that they should get the hell out. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Thank you, Mrs. Roy-Alain; Mrs. Nicole Plante. 

MRS. NICOLE PLANTE: 

      Good evening, as you know, I have attended a lot of information 
sessions and several public hearings.  And on several occasions, the 
promoter was asked to tell us about the risks of accident, and the 
promoter has always said that there were no risks in Quebec.  They 
never said - well, they have refused to give us all the information 
for this type of company.  This is trying to lull us into sleep.  
Denying facts or not saying the entire truth is not trustworthy for a 
company that wants to pass its pipeline through our lands. 

      Mr. Trudelle, Mr. Delisle, on several times during the 
information sessions - Mr. Alain attended a lot of these sessions; he 
could say so - and the promoter has always hidden part of the truth, 
and I find that unacceptable on their part. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Thank you very much, Mrs. Plante, this is a rectification 
period. 

MRS. NICOLE PLANTE: 

      Well, that's exactly what I wanted to do, rectify the fact that 
the promoter hid part of the truth by not providing us the correct 
answers. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      So, that's it? 

MRS. NICOLE PLANTE: 

      Yes, that would have to be it, because this promoter, as we 
said, is not trustworthy.  They shouldn't come anywhere near us.  You 
know, I'm ashamed, and I'll be ashamed if my government allows them to 
come through my place, because then I'm going to have to make a value 
judgement against my government that would accept this kind of game in 
its province for economic gains. 

THE CHAIRMAN: 

      Thank you, okay, this brings to an end the rectification period.  
However, if you don't mind, I would like to say a few things to close 
these public hearings.  I would have preferred things not to fizzle 
out this way, but that's the way life goes for this kind of job. 
Anyway, we are wrapping up the second part of our public hearings this 
evening.  

      I would like to point out the quality of the briefs presented, 
the significant involvement of all the various stakeholders and people 
concerned by the project.  This involvement will obviously help us to 
make the appropriate recommendations to the Minister of Environment 
and Wildlife.  Rest assured that the Commission will do a significant 
in-depth analysis of all your concerns, and all the arguments, and 
data presented to us. 

      Our report will be tabled with the Minister of Environment and 
Wildlife on October 9th, and the Minister will have sixty (60) days 
there from to make the report public.  We received sixty-seven (67) 
briefs, and until the 29th of August, we will still be welcoming 
briefs and documents that will be filed with us. 

      I would like to thank the citizens, the various groups, and 
public bodies that got involved in this respectfully and responsibly.  
The citizens are the experts in the environment.  They know the 
environment, and they have proven it.  They appreciate it, and they 
are able to evaluate the relevance and indications of elements that 
are likely to affect this environment. 

      I would like to thank all those involved in these public 
hearings: the promoter, Gazoduc TQM, the resource persons who were 
present at the first part of the hearings, the communications branch 
that was responsible for the logistics, the stenographers' 
transcriptions, the interpreters, and finally the support team for the 
Commission:  Mme. Solanges Hudon, Danielle Paré, Richard Daigle, 
Hélène Marchand, France Carter, Mylène Savard, and Thérèse Daigle. 

      Finally, I must tell you that I admired your participation, your 
patience, and determination.  And, finally, I would like to thank the 
courage of the people who participated in the hearings, particularly 
the people of the Eastern Townships, more specifically, Magog, Stukely 
South, East Hereford, Ste-Catherine-de-Hatley, and Ayer's Cliff.  
Thank you very much, and goodnight to everyone. 

                               ************** 

      I, the undersigned Official Court Reporter, do hereby certify 
that the foregoing is a true transcription of the translation of the 
public hearings of the BAPE, as taken by me in Stenotyping. 

      AND I HAVE SIGNED:
                         

                         ____________________________
                         ANNAGRET RINALDI
                         Official Court Reporter

Go Top

Go to Briefs Index

Go to Pipeline Blues Index