Pipeline Blues Logo

Bureau d'Audiences Publiques sur l'Environnement


M. CHARLES CLOUTIER, commissaire
M. JEAN PARÉ, commissaire


Séance tenue le 28 juillet 1997, à; 19 h
Hôtel Idéal
12555, rue Sherbrooke E.




Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the second part of our public hearings on the extension of the TQM pipeline from Lachenaie to East Hereford. My name is Camille Genest. I'm the Commissioner, and I will be presiding this meeting with Mr. Jean Paré and the other members of the BAPE.

There is Mme. Paré, analyst; Mr. Didier Le Néhaff, information agent; Mme. Mylène Savard, Mme. France Carter, who are both agents for the secretariat. The stenotypist is Mme. Lise Maisonneuve for the French version and Mme. Annagret Rinaldi for the English version. The interpretation services for English to French and French to English are available. The technical services are provided by the Ministry of Technical Services and Immigration and under the management of Mr. Jean Métivier, assisted by Mr. Patrice Leclerc for the sound system.

The second part of this consultation process is for hearing briefs, and the presentation of their briefs may be done verbally or simply by depositing, tabling, your brief and explaining the brief. Any one group or individual may take a position on the project or on any element, which is part of the project that we are examining. You are invited to come up and present your brief according to the roll established with Mrs. France Carter. This list is available in the consultation room.

And the stenographic notes are also available at various centres, including the Coaticook, Memphremagog, and Ste-Julie municipal librairies, the Granby municipal library, the reception room at the Roussin Centre, and at the University of Quebec in Montreal, and at the BAPE itself. Documents are also available from the secretary of the Commission.

I would like to remind you about the evaluation procedure and the role of the BAPE. There was a first part of hearings, where the participants who wished to do were able to ask questions to the Commission, to the developer, and to the resource persons. Additional questions were also asked in writing, and the answers were deposited in the consultation centres.

Now, we are going onto the second part of the process. The Commission will analyze the results and integrate them to its own analysis of the subject. The analysis and the results will be put into a report and given to the Ministry of the Environment and the Fauna on October 9th. This Ministry has sixty (60) days to make the bureau's report public.

Regarding the session, the second part of the session, we have the following time schedule. This evening, we have a session here at the Chambly Motel Ideal. This will be the only session, since we don't have enough briefs to hold a session tomorrow evening. On July 30 and 31 July, we will be at Hotel Castel in Estrie and Granby. On August 4th and 5, we will be at the Pub de la Gorge on Michel Street in Coaticook. And on August 6th and 7th, we will be in the parish room at Saint-Jean de Bosco at 900 Sherbrooke Street in Magog.

Before I invite the first presenter to come forward, I will remind you of the rules of proceeding. Once the participants finish presenting their brief, the Commission will ask questions to be able to understand all of the arguments presented and obtain additional information. In addition, there is a right of rectification to correct sheets or incorrect data that was given during the session. This right is accessible to all and may be exercised at the end of each session. If you wish to do so, you may register with Mrs. Carter at the back of the room or Mrs. Savard.

Right of rectification is a process that enables you to make a short intervention on a precise matter of fact or a precise rectification of data. You are not to expose an argument or develop another argument, only to provide information to correct an element that was already discussed during your presentation. At the end of each session, there will be a session at the end of each evening to permit right of rectification. The right of rectification once again is only on matters of fact. It is not a time to issue opinions.

The Commission, at all times, wishes to create a serene climate for work, and injurious or insulting comments are contrary to that atmosphere. So, we hope you have good hearings on the second part of these hearings on this project.

I will now ask Mr. Paul Mayer to come and present his brief. Good evening, Mr. Mayer, it is a pleasure to see you back.


Yes, good evening, don't be afraid. It is not my intention to be very angry, the same thing. I just want to make references. What I want to do is describe my abbreviated brief, and I'll start right away with the first point since the Société des Amis Du Parc developed a brief with six (6) precise points.

So, I'll start with number 1: Identification of the Société des Amis du Parc. And then, what I am going to do this evening is talk about the relevancy of certain elements that are more relevant than others.

What we want to do is because the Société des Amis du Parc was created in collaboration with and upon the demand of the MUC, we got a charter and rules of functioning and so forth. And since our Société was a movement that was created by a consultation table, we had more power in a partnership with the MUC. So, then, what we are saying now is that it is conceivable in the projects that happened in the last year that we were never consulted as managing partners.

And the first document that I'm going to read tonight would be this one, which is part of point 1. If you take the first reference, it is the choice of management of these parks. It was developed by the MUC for the eastern sector of Montreal. It was a choice of partnership management. The MUC and us were supposed to be partners and discuss everything that was to occur in the park.

In the other references, the EB, an abbreviated copy of the charter that I have, so that you can see that what we say is true, the relevancy is the following. In item reference 1(c), I have here a letter from the President of the park, Mme. Anne Pontbriand, who sent to Mme. Dominique Perez a letter to support our project. We had a project in 1992, and I'll just read you a paragraph from that letter to show you what we are supposed to be in the eyes of the MUC:

"Following our telephone conversation, I would like to confirm to you the support of the MUC to your society. I would like you to tell us what is your management position for the P.A.P. park, and where it is located. To do so, these organizations have joined together under a non-profit organization called the Société des Amis du Parc de la P.A.P."

So, we are supposed to take over certain activities, financial activities and other activities, of the park. It is supposed to be the Société who participates in the management of the park.

In conclusion, I should tell you that this project will contribute to reinforce the conservation mission of the Regional Park Society. We are working as volunteers. In the guiding principles, MUC, regarding municipal parks, you will see documents that prove what I say. The consultation table is a permanent table. It is on page 44.

What we do not like, and I'm going now into point 2, is that we say that the vices of procedure, in other words, a problem with MUC procedure, exist. We believe it is inconceivable for us in the east, who have a role to play - the Société has a role to play to defend our assets. We haven't been consulted in the past year on different projects, for example, the golf courses that were planned, a hundred and forty-seven (147) hectares for one of the golf courses, the pipeline project, the Montreal Bleu project, and another Montreal Bleu project, and others. We learn these projects through the local papers. We have not been consulted.

So, well, what they say as an excuse is that the friends of the park have become a lobby group. Well, of course, we have become a lobby group. With all the problems we have in the Pointe-aux-Prairies, it is logical for us to become a lobby group, because nothing was getting done otherwise.

So, we had newspapers articles published. They applied the knife to the throat policy, and they accused us of being a lobby group, but we have a cause to defend, just one thing, to defend this park in its entirety and improve the quality of life of the people in the sector. With all that I have brought here tonight, you will see what we have to go through. There is a lot.

Now, onto point 2, in the secondary references, I wrote here letter from Mr. Guérin that I have entitled "The Great Punishment". You will see that there is a coincidence here. When I wrote this brief, we were supposed to free up the area for July 8. There is all kinds of aberrations like this. They say it is a coincidence, but whatever. It is always like that.

We have a lot of difficulty succeeding with the elected officials concerning dumps and anything to deal with the park, and especially with the projects that are now underway. We have a right to participate in the meetings concerning all of these projects that are now underway.

In the references concerning the second point, that is 2(b), guiding principles, page 1, 335, 36, you have all of the points concerning the consultation table concerning the Amis du Parc, and how it is supposed to work, and what they are supposed to respect, so that everybody is functional in the sector.

Reference 2(c), and this is important, because once again it is in the guiding principle, where the process that is supposed to be followed up to finalization, and this is what we do presently. So, this is supposed to work very well between them and the City of Montreal, since it is two (2) fingers from the same hand.

Now, here is another one where you can see that things are not working, and how and why is all written down here, why we are going through this situation: reference 2(f), the two (2) golf courses for the sector; reference 2(g), article in the Journal de Montréal. This is an aberration. We are not against a golf course in Rivière-des-Prairies. It doesn't bother us. It's fine, but what we are trying to defend is that we find it ridiculous to have to give up land that was purchased for conservation, and it says it right in the 1989 plan, and now we are renting the land out to developers. This is inconceivable, and we had nothing to say about it.

Now, point 2(h) in the reference, another newspaper article, this is ridiculous, a map with the two (2) golf courses in Rivière-des-Prairies. This is crazy. The City of Montreal don't have any money to do anything. Our Société has been asking them to correct a problem with the dumps and the swamps, and leaching, and covering the dumps. They don't have money to do that, but they have six (6) million dollars to rent land for golf courses, to close viaducts and other things.

We want to improve our sector, but what is inconceivable is that, at all times, people can go play on these golf courses, and there is no fences there. It is leaching twenty (20) feet wide. We have three (3) videos and copies that we sent around to everyone, MUC and everyone, and they are not doing anything to cap those dumps or stop that leaching.

Now, 2(i), a letter by Mr. Paul Mayer in response to the elected officials at the MUC, I'll tell you why. It is because lately, just before this BAPE Commission, we had elected officers with Mr. Normand Mathieu, who came in to talk about the dumps. And then, we gave a photocopy to them, and they agreed at the end to say that it is true, we do not have the control of these dumps and the residues. And these people were supposed to meet in April and May and go over the land. They never came.

I spoke with Mme. Laurin from the city and said... We met with the MUC people. And then, I gave her a letter to say... You should read this. Here is a copy in the box to show that everything that I said was true. To finish point 2, it is inconceivable that, in the past ten (10) years, people say I'm crazy and so on. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have been writing to these people for ten (10) years with photos and telephone calls and so forth. And I never received a document saying that what you say is crazy, Mr. Mayer. So, what can you do?

The third point, the dumps and the residues, in this third point, where the first part of the pipeline is going in the sector and Autoroute 40, and I don't say it in the brief that if TQM decided to go into directional drilling in that area, it is not to protect nature or to protect the environment.

And there is another item that I'm losing here, that what happens is that this sector, this drilling under the swamp and under the dump is a problem, because it is all rotted land. I can prove it to them, if they just come and see it or even look at the video, because what we are saying is true.

They can go under that. It is true, but what bothers us is that TQM has never tabled reports to say exactly where they are drilling, but we are afraid of contamination. We saw them at the first hearings of the BAPE. You asked them to produce those reports. Maybe they have them. I would like to check again and see.

In addition, during the first meeting, when you asked the Quebec Government representative to tell us what was happening with the Rivière- des-Prairies dump and the first part of the pipeline and directional drilling, they said, well, this thing was closed for the last fifty (50) years. That's ridiculous, because that dump was only twenty-six (26) years old. It was open in 1968 and closed in 1972.

So, it is inconceivable that it hasn't been cleaned properly in a park like this. So, it is all colours. It is horrible. It is running summer and winter, and nothing has been happening. It is inconceivable. And in addition, don't forget the sector between Route 40 and Sherbrooke Street. That's why Mr. Vanier asked you the question the first evening if there were any analyses for contamination done in the sector by the City of Montreal between Autoroute 40 and Sherbrooke Street.

There is a pool that has been created that is sixty-eight (68) feet long and very wide and very deep, and the water has been there for several years. And then, there is water that is coming in from the (inaudible) of the incineration centre, so that the residues are leaking into this pool of water that was created by beavers.

So, it wouldn't take long to go check what I'm saying. Go look at it. This water is orange. Just look at it. Even if you tell me that it is not contaminated, I won't believe it. It is orange. And in the sector where this water exists, there are children playing. And all the officials and all the cities are aware of what is happening, and they are not doing anything. It is a terrible situation.

Now, here I give you number 3(a), the map of the park dumps. I also put another one in, a document from the City of Montreal versus MUC. In August, 1996, with Mme. Laurin, we asked them to clean the dumps. And what happened was that Mr. Normand Mathieu said to Mme. Laurin: Listen, these dumps, we have the full control of them, and there is no problem with them. We are even going to ask the Quebec Government to take them off the blacklist.

So, it is an aberration. Look what's leaching there. So, often I say to several people in the sector we are not second-class citizens. We are third-class citizens. People who represent our assets at the MUC and in the City of Montreal, well, concerning these problems, they are not helping us, not helping us at all.

In reference 3(b), that is 3(c), that is a letter by Mr. Gobé who supported us with regard to the mayor and the City of Montreal, asking for change. So, I'm putting that letter there as a reference.

Now, 3(d), this is important. Reference 3(d) are the two (2) results of water analysis that we asked when the consultation table was created at MUC. Mme. Chateigner(?) was the manager of the park at that time. We asked for analyses of the water created by the dumps. There was no drilling or anything at that time. And you can see two (2) samplings done by highly rated firms.

And we are also putting in the box reference 3(e), the counter analysis done by BPC Environment. So, even according to them, it is very difficult. You will have to know how to read these water analyses sheets. So, we had him to come in and do eight (8) samples. He asked for forty thousand dollars ($40,000.00). We had two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) in the bank. So, we asked them could they do it for us. They did it for six hundred dollars ($600.00). So, Mr. Mathieu has those in hand since November, 1996, and he never told us anything about it.

3(g), the guidelines for the regional park, I put four (4) references concerning our Société and how it works.

Now, 3(h), very important, we gave you video number 3, a video that we did to send to all mayors in Montreal and the suburbs. I placed this video at Pointe-aux-Trembles. It is an hour long, and we would be very happy if you could watch it. You will then tell me whether what I'm telling you is true or not true. It is a very clear video.

Now, for 3(i), our video wasn't so clear. So, we did photos in May, 1997. The date is on the back of the photos. Look at them. You are going to see that they speak for themselves.


Mr. Mayer, there is ten (10) minutes for your presentation.


That's fine. I'll finish within ten (10) minutes.


Well, I should assure you that all of your documents will be read, and your videos will be viewed.


Well, thank you, that makes me very happy. You are going to see we didn't maybe have the proper form, but we did our best.

Now, I'm sorry to be speaking so fast, but I need to be able to tell you all of this in twenty (20) minutes; 3(j), the acquisition.... MUC.

In reference 4(a), point 4 is about the TQM project. 4(a) is correspondence of the Société with Jacques-Errol Guérin from the MUC concerning the way he handled the people at Pointe-aux-Prairies.

But what you should take into account, what happened is that a big company like TQM was supposed to have open doors, and that is when they did their first expertise. We had the emergency plan finalized, but it was never presented for the beginning of the Commission. They presented a preliminary emergency plan, but it is not the finalized plan. We want to see the finalized plan, because this evening we had the opportunity at the last minute.

That Saturday at Roussin, I was showing the people of the MUC at the time a documentation that I got from the federal government, "Reflection on the Security of Pipelines". So, I took a few samples of that to document myself. If TQM had given us this in this sector, we would have had some great information, and the first evening wouldn't have had the same impact.

According to them, I mean I am not against the Commission itself, but I denounce a few things. They gave the great parts of the pipeline, the TQM, but we don't know that. We depend on them. They made a very professional wonderful report. I was impressed, but there are things missing. It is obvious. I read everything that they gave. I was here several evenings.

But what we don't like is that that was - the first thing was that the emergency plan should have been ready. And also what we don't like is that they should have had water, soil and air analyses for the park, because directional drilling, we have to wonder. According to the MUC, everything is wonderful. There is no problem drilling under dumps, but we want to know if that's really true. I would like you to come with me. It would take just an hour to show this to you. Now, do you have the opportunity to see this kind of thing?


Yes, we have the documentation.


Well, I was really impressed up to date with that. Now, in copy, that is reference 4(b), I thought it would be a good idea to make photocopies of 11.1 and 11.4 of their expertise, TQM. In the compression stations, there are some dangers. We think that... In the second evening of the BAPE inquiry, I don't think their answer was very good. I read that there is all different kinds of accidents that can happen for uncleaned valves and so on. And I am sure that there are pipelines from 1955, and that technology has improved today, but can't we have better information to base our decisions upon?

Now, reference 4(c), newspaper articles that confirm everything we are saying about the pipeline and other things.

And now, reference 4(d), once again since I was mentioning in point 4 that there were problems in the Rivière-des-Prairies sector, since we never have our word to say, but the taxpayers, first of all, had to pay for this land. Now, they are going to have to pay to have them installed. And now, they are going to pay again to manage the maintenance of these terrains. And we do not like that we have no word to say, and that the MUC decides everthing. So, there are not many employees who live there in the regional park, and it is very hard to identify people for the sector.

Now, I would like to bring your attention to 4(e). The TCV video which we did just before the hearings, you can see that everything I'm saying makes sense. We kept that video for the second part. We've had it many (inaudible) at the beginning, but it is only about twenty (20) minutes, the whole thing. I mean we figured pictures speak louder than words, and we are amateur video people. And we think it is very clear. It is easy to see, and look at it, gentlemen, and you will see. This is where the pipeline is going to go through directional drilling.

The fourth point, it is a suggestion regarding the security or safety of the installation of the pipeline. The other side of the coin is that TQM or somebody, if the government had or people decide to have the opportunity to see, they should have had the opportunity to see this, I am sure things wouldn't have happened the way they did. That's quite obvious.

The fifth point, I believe I should come in under my twenty (20) minutes, if I continue the way I'm going. The fifth point, we have projects such as Montreal Bleu, Grand Montreal Bleu, and the Croissant de l'Est. As I said before, when I talk about these things, it is because, for us, they all go together with the pipeline, because they all go through the park. Where land of the park is being taken, it affects Pointe-aux- Prairies.

I can tell you that at no point did Société des Amis du Parc stand against these projects, whether we are talking about Montreal Bleu, Grand Montreal Bleu, or the golf courses. As I said before, we are in favour of golf courses. We have nothing against them.

But regarding Montreal Bleu, I have articles in here in the box. You will see all kinds of references of projects that we have from our regional newspaper. When Montreal Bleu started, for example, we said we would restore rue Pinel. You will see it was in the newspapers about Montreal Bleu. What they told us was that they were going to redo the hydroelectric dam at Visitation to get boats to go by. At the time, it cost forty (40) million. Now, we are in 1997. Imagine what it is going to cost.

What we are saying is that, for this sector, we would like people to go ahead and complete what they started up, but do so based on priorities before building a golf course or two (2) golf courses. Let them finish the Pointe-aux-Prairies project that they haven't started.

This park, we started to... Montreal Bleu and Grand Montreal Bleu, but we started with a park. About two-thirds of the way, it was abandoned, and they went and completed Ile Bizard at sixteen (16) million dollars. And then, they went to Cap St-Jean at one point five two (1.52) million for another project. They came to the east and bought another lot in Anjou to do.

What I'm saying is that it is inconceivable. They never completed our park. There is a large portion of the park that has been bought, but the project is not finished.

And I just want to point out that when the Société started, Mme. Gagnon wanted to buy Ile Bon Foin. They said it made no sense. It consulted the MUC, when the City of Montreal wanted to give us the land, the large land on Sherbrooke Street where they want to build a golf course. The city told Mme. Gagnon that they were going to use that land to increase the park. We could not accept it, because we couldn't meet one of the conditions, and we said they should continue. We couldn't carry on. As to my --


Could you conclude, please?


Now, in conclusion, what we would like, we, the Amis du Parc, is that we are respected by the MUC and the people who are in place there right now. In other words, we should have our say with respect to all the infrastructures on the park of Pointe-aux-Prairies that are harming the quality of life of people in the area. I thank you very much for listening to me, and I hope that you will take the time to look at everything we have here for you. Thank you very much.


Don't leave just yet. Maybe we will have a question or two (2) for you. Now, you are going to table your documents with the secretariat at the back. If I understand correctly regarding the pipeline project, you don't have any major objections provided the analyses are done properly.


I didn't get to point 6 and 7, but I talked to a woman in your office this evening. I told her to add - well, I guess you have a new way. If the brief is too long, we put a summary of them. I spoke to a certain lady over there.

And, look, there is something else. We would like - based on where the discussions are with the MUC, we, the Société, would like TQM to do directional drilling. You can see the article in the newspaper. We would like TQM to do directional drilling all through along the water all the way through the park, even if we have to pay for other things. I mean we have nothing. I mean we are the ones who - I mean they'll take the money, the compensation, and the MUC uses it for other things, and we are saying that no.

Look, if there is directional drilling through from Terre de Saint- Apôtre all the way to the river, we avoid a corridor in the line between Sherbrooke and Notre Dame. And if we do this in addition, the fees would be, instead of eight hundred thousand ($800,000.00), would be three hundred thousand ($300,000.00), four hundred thousand ($400,000.00). I don't know, but the amount would be a lot less. That's quite clear.


Thank you very much; Mr. Paré.

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair; Mr. Mayer, in your brief, you said that before being friends of the project, you are friends of the park, and your goal is to complete the park before going into any other projects and creating an attractive alternative sort of park. By comparison, you mentioned considerable investments made in other natur parks in west of the MUC. What projects would constitute attractive alternatives for you at the park of Pointe-aux-Prairies briefly?


In the new position of the land between Sherbrooke and Notre Dame, we had an open air space that was costing us forty thousand dollars ($40,000.00) a year, and it wasn't operational. So, I suggested to the people at the MUC that we also want an outdoor area near the river with a good parking lot near Sherbrooke, because we had no parking spot on Boulevard Gouin. We thought it could be done.

And, certainly, several times I suggested that the Bois d'Héritage be developed and with all the noise and vibrations, we have got all kinds of problems. The Bois d'Héritage, it is not just the noise that is coming, but what we could have done is, before the other park they do, I proposed to Mme. Pontbriand to... like the people in Montreal do, we could attract people to our park. We could do all kinds of things. There are two (2) other parks that did that.

Now, in this sector, we have got colours that are very rare. There are different shades of brown that are very rare. I suggested that we should use that to get people, to attract people to come and visit here. I thought we should show that... We know we have a lot of restrictions and limitations in the area, but I think if we developed it properly, we are able to do something that is comparable to other regional parks, but we would have to invest. That's obvious, but at this point in time, ask anybody, the park is not complete.

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:

Now, how can the pipeline project harm these other projects? MR. PAUL MAYER: Well, the first time the TQM people, Mr. Delisle and also the one I'm behind here, the first time we met these people was following the discussions, what, about six (6) months ago. I don't know. What matters is they had a very poor perspective of who we are.

They said, you know, those guys, they are all a bunch of crazies, crazy people. And we met them at Roussin and ask them - when they came here, ask them if we were against the project; not at all. When we meet these people --

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:

So, your answer is that the pipeline is compatible with other future uses of the park.


I said yes, provided... As far as I am concerned, if the fees are not reinvested in the sector, if we don't have directional drilling --

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:

Well, forget about the drilling method. If the fees that the pipeline will have to pay, if the money is used for the park, would that facilitate your other projects?


Certainly, certainly, but as I said, for sustainable development based on TQM's estimate, if they do directional drilling right across the sector, they would be able to sustain - we would be able to have sustainable development, because there is not going to be any corridors, as I said before.

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:

Thank you very much, Mr. Mayer.


Mr. Mayer, thank you very much for your presentation, and we would examine your documents very closely. The next speaker is Mme. Suzanne Décarie. Good evening, Mme. Décarie, you have seen the process. You have got twenty (20) minutes in all. So, the longer you take to speak, the less opportunity we have to have any discussion.


Okay, I have a very short statement to make. I am a citizen of Pointe-aux-Trembles. I have been here for over twenty (20) years, and I must tell you that I'm interested in everything that happens in my sector. I am quite active. And in addition, I am also a part of several committees, including the Environmental Watch Committee for the east of Montreal.

Very often, we see the negative impact of projects very late, because we lack information, and that is why I'm here today. Sometimes we are victims of negligence, because there is lack of involvement on the part of the citizens. And I think it is a duty of the society to take a stand, and that's why I'm here tonight to issue my opinions regarding this project, this large scale project. So, this is why I have a few comments to make.

Overall, this project seems inevitable to me, and I don't think we can imagine bypassing this kind of project. Also, this is a resource. It is a local resource, which is a complement to what we have already have, i.e. electricity, but I must say that I was fairly disappointed following the first series of hearings, because I got the impression that I was among people who didn't quite get a good handle on the issues, because all the answers that were given were quite evasive. Each question, the answer was: It's possible. It can be envisaged. It is too early. It is not planned, but it cannot be excluded. It can't be ruled out. We think that. We believe.

Generally speaking, those were the types of answers we were getting, but since I am somebody who is quite tenacious, these answers only arouse my curiosity and raised all kinds of questions. So, I have two (2) points that concern me.

The first point, I am reluctant to approve the project. I know this first point doesn't really affect us people, the people of Pointe-aux- Trembles, but it has to do with the loss of land that small private land owners will face following the limit of the land right of way of twenty- three (23) metres for the pipeline. That's not all. You should also add the thirty (30) additional metres on each side for a total of eighty-three (83) metres. So, these people will have to lose eighty-three (83) metres of their land area.

Now, despite compensation measures offered to these land owners, they will still lose residential autonomy and territorial freedom. In short, the only right that these people would maintain, it would be their tax bill. And in such cases, maybe we should plan for the promoter to buy the portion of the land and then pay all the costs related thereto, but allow the former owner to maintain a right of way and a right of maintenance. Anyway, it is a suggestion. I don't know what people will think about it.

Now, with respect to compensation given to owners of the land, if I understood correctly, this compensation should be fair. Now, unless I'm mistaken, the developer has already investing a lot of money to determine the compensation that will have to be offered to the owners.

If you take the example of the park of Pointe-aux-Prairies as the gentleman talked before, in this process, it would determine the quality of the soil, of aerial photographs taken, place samples, and so on and so forth, if I understood correctly what was said during the first series of hearings. And then, basically, they would do an evaluation of the environment to determine how much compensation they will have to offer.

Now, where I have a lot of mistrust and reservation is that when we are dealing with an owner like the Montreal Urban Community, who doesn't want to reinvest in the park of Pointe-aux-Prairies, it doesn't want to invest all the money provided by the developer for compensation. And the fact that they want to reinvest this money where they want, I think that shows a lack of transparency and very little respect for the people of the extreme east of Montreal. We have a park here, and we don't want to deteriorate it or to neglect it. We would do everything we can to maintain this park.

Once again, they are trying to pull a fast one. In fact, our rights are being trampled upon by people in power, in public authority. We have to ask for accounts from the people who manage our taxpayers' money.

I must say there are very few developers who offer compensation that is more than what it is really worth, unless they are completely incompetent or they are trying to cause their own death, and this is not the case here. The company would no longer be viable. So, we must say that the compensation granted to the Montreal Urban Community will not be higher than the losses caused, and that the compensation would be fair.

So, I am completely against the fact that the MUC would not reinvest all the money paid by the developer for the park of Pointe-aux-Prairies, and I ask that all the money provided by the developer's compensation be reinvested by the MUC in the same area. Now, when compensation is given following the evaluation of a damage caused by the project, it is quite normal that all this money be used for this purpose. It is just as normal for us to know the amount granted to this end, given that it all comes from public money.

In conclusion, I can only leave things in the hands of the promoter to make sure that they apply all the guidelines and preventive measures to reduce the negative impact that could stem from such environmental insouciance. And I hope that everything would be done based on the rules of the trade. That's it.


Thank you very much, Mrs. Décarie. You say that this project is inevitable. Are you saying that - is it fatalistic? Do you say it is going to happen regardless, or do you think it is an appropriate project that meets certain needs and that should be achieved?


Yes, I think it is a need. We got electricity, but we need a complement. Elsewhere, they understood that, and I think we should benefit from that, too. However, there are certain rules to be followed, because often we are victimized, because these rules aren't followed. There is no regulations. And then, we pay the price.


So, for you, it is a legitimate project.




Now, you talked about the fees and compensation that should be reinvested by the MUC in the same area. Now, if I understood correctly, your recommendation is that these amounts be used by the MUC for the development of the park of Pointe-aux-Prairies, if I understood correctly.


Yes, look at insurance, for example. If there is a fire and you are paid "x" amount of money in terms of compensation, the idea is for you to use it to rebuild. So, I think it is quite normal that when an amount is paid out for compensation for something, that that money be used for that purpose and not reinvested elsewhere as in the west, as it usually happens. It is not really clean.


Now, you want these measures to be made public by the MUC.


Yes, I think it is normal, because it is our tax money. I think it is quite normal for us to know what money would be allocated to this end.


Mr. Paré, no questions? Okay, thank you very much, Mrs. Décarie, for taking the initiative to take interest in a project that is being developed in your community; Mrs. Catherine Chevalier-Alvarez, good evening, it is nice to see you again.


Thank you very much, I'm going to read a summary of our brief. Now, the major theme is frustration and restrictions harming our quality of life regarding the safety perimeters and the right of way in the developer's contract. We think that this is... The developer, on this economic stress, is authorizing owners to build within a thirty (30) metre perimeter, and that goes against the spirit of the National Energy Board, which asks for caution based on the type of work to be done.

Now, by asking for a right... based on its contract, a contract that has accessory servitudes, that deprives the land owners of all rights of accession as defined in Section 948 of the Civil Code, a right that the promoter wants to be transmitted to them.

Now, the thirty (30) metre perimeter on each side of the right of way places the land owners in a vulnerable situation, in a situation of feudal dependency on a developer who wants us to transmit our rights except that of paying individual rights as well as improvement taxes or special taxes, and that contravenes Section 982 of the Civil Code. Nothing forces us to give over a right of way, perpetual right of way, or free safety perimeter, and nothing forces us to continue to subsidize these perimeters.

The rights of way cause problems to the owners, and not only psychological problems and perpetual frustration, but also physical problems caused by the movement of all terrain vehicles and other vehicles that harm the environment or the area. And the promoter doesn't realize that these properties are private properties despite the servitudes.

Now, there is no compensation on the part of the company for the harm caused and the costs incurred by the taxpayers for snow removal in the winter as a result of the expansion of Gaz Metropolitain's right of way. The company condemns land owners to continue working for them as a result of their lack of action and the fact that they don't have any signs up.

The developer is asking for a right of way of twenty-three (23) metres, and it is prepared to pay for either a hundred (100) or a hundred and twenty-five percent (125%) of the market value of the land compared with the surrounding land, and that would place the owner in a position of deficit. We have some calculations presented to support this argument. We are giving away the right of ownership on this area, this thirty (30) metre perimeter, and we are only paid for twenty-three (23) metres out of eighty- three (83).

Now, economic development should not be done to the detriment of trees and the forest, which are (inaudible) of our community. The company should remember that it should be a good proper citizen, and that they have to invest in the moral democratic and environmental development.

Our recommendation is that the maximum duration of ten (10) years be set, a duration with annual compensation, the same number of years as a licence, and this should be placed by the National Energy Board, page 11-4, TQM estimate. The developer should also provide all people along the line, to provide them with fair and equitable compensation.

We recommend that an act be passed that no housing be placed within the thirty (30) metre perimeter, and that a larger distance be required particularly in resort areas or rural areas. The further the houses are from this area, the more the requirement of safety perimeter should be larger.

The legal advisor should be socially responsible and pay attention to the rights of the people involved.

Now, companies that... Now, the erection of signs should be demanded of the developers by the future energy board, so that the owners are able to have peace and tranquility in their areas. A storage of pipes, machinery, and other tools should be done in an environmentally friendly manner in La Prairie and also save the cutting of trees which take longer to grow.

National work should be done to bring together various energy consuming companies, and the developer should get anybody who is involved in giving away land for the construction of this pipeline. They should be looked at as partners instead of a dangerous limitation.

The standard contracts created by the companies should disappear for one or several models. There shouldn't be any limiting clause that asks one has to give away their rights permanently for the benefit of TQM. The energy board should come up with a standard contract that includes maximal review mechanisms or five (5) year review mechanisms with economic adjustments, to ensure that the owners see something else other than nuisances with respect to a pipeline right of way.

Mr. Chair, I would like to ask you if it is possible to table a document with a sketch that explains - well, the idea is to demonstrate what Mr. Poisson said on the third day at Pointe-aux-Trembles during the first hearings, when he claims that the behind or the portion of our property is larger than the front.

I think when you do an analysis of the land, I mean this is not a forest. We are talking about - well, he said it is not a wooded area, whereas it is a wooded area except for areas where - I mean it is a good wooded area, a beautiful wooded area, that has been maintained over the past twenty (20) years by my husband. It is a land of about fifty-five thousand (55,000) metres with fronting on the road, and the portion behind is larger than the portion in front.

However, my husband has calculated the total area of right of way, plus a thirty (30) metre perimeter, and the result is much more than the land that we are left with. It is four hundred and forty-eight (448) metres eighty-two (82).

I can table this?


With the secretary at the back of the room, is that the end of your presentation?




Now, on this particular point, your calculations are different from those done by Mr. Poisson, the representative of the developer. He has a right of rectification. If he feels it is appropriate, he can do so at the end of the session, either to say, yes, I agree that my calculations are correct, or to say that my calculations were not correct on such and such a point.


Mr. Chair, there is another error in their preliminary plan. Their calculations or the calculations by their land surveyor doesn't correspond to the depth of the land. They calculated two hundred and sixty-five (265) feet. Anyway, I can give you the figures, the exact figures, the exact figure in the southern portion, two hundred and ninety-three (293); northern portion of my land, two hundred and ninety-one point one (291.1). So, it doesn't quite coincide with the measurements of their land surveyor.


So, I am sure there is a discrepancy there between land surveyors. Anyway, coming back to your arguments and recommendations, you are aware that some of your recommendations require amendments to the act and regulations, but particularly with respect to the National Energy Board.

There are other operating recommendations, if they are deemed appropriate, for example, the idea of snow removal, of putting up signs, of restoration work and so on and so forth, and that is a more timely recommendation.

And also you had something to say about the attitude or behaviour or the corporate citizenship of the company, and that they should respect the people they do business with.

There are three (3) different types of recommendations or reflections that the Commission will analyze in this regard, but could you explain to us - I mean I think we understood very clearly what your recommendations were with respect to the perimeter, with respect to the rights that you term to be feudal dependency and vulnerability. Those are very strong expressions, but the whole business of snow winds, can you explain that to us?


The main wind is east/west on this road, from east to west. And every time there is some wind, all the snow that is on the easement of Gaz Metropolitain will fill up my driveway and the whole Girardin Road. Two (2) snowbanks a foot and a half, that's fifteen (15) metres for Hydro Quebec, a little bit more with the easement on my southern neighbour, thirty (30) metres with Hydro Quebec and eighteen (18) for Gaz Metropolitain, and my driveway.

All of it gets filled up, and it takes two (2) hours for the car that comes from Waterloo to clear it up, because nobody can drive there anymore. It's impossible. There is too much snow because of the wind. And if there is a little bit of wind a little stronger, then it's impossible. And when we go there for the winter for Christmas or a weekend, you know, you don't want to shovel eight (8) to ten (10) feet of snow. We have photos, but you could see with the neighbours and so on that it is not snow, blowing snow. It is really from these easements.

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:

Okay, on that point, you just spoke about, Mr. Alvarez, this is a problem that you know in the current state of affairs.


Yes, but this pipeline will worsen the problem.

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:

Have you talked about it with the people who already have easements on their property to find out whether it is possible to take measures to correct the problem?


Well, there is an even more urgent problem with Gaz Metropolitain, and I'll give you it as an example. I had a problem when they were redoing the Girardin Road. They were putting security blocks on the road. So, the same week that they put those blocks down, there was water erosion from a strong rain. The water went underneath that block and went like this underneath. And I said if it stays like that, it is going to erode everything. It is going to fall on the pipe. I don't know if the pipe will withstand the force.

So, I called up Gaz Metropolitain on the phone. And I got Mr. Simard, and I asked him to fix that problem. We had no answer. Then, we wrote in. We had no answer. We wrote again. Then, I got a letter from Mr. Simard saying that Gaz Metropolitain can come in, go out, go up, go down, whatnot. I know that already, but I never had follow-up for six (6) years, never an answer to fix that problem.

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:

Does the problem still exist, sir?


Well, I spoke with Mr. Trudelle, and I said you better correct this problem before you create another one. So, I put rocks to prevent the erosion underneath that stone.

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:

So, what could correct the problem?


They put a pipe near each post and space there. I mean I can't see it. I can't scratch in there to see if they fixed the blocks, but anyway they poured gravel on the top, but I had to wait six (6) years for them to do that, and I found that the follow-up was really poor. From Hydro Quebec, I didn't even ask for an indemnity, but I had to waste my time and had to spend a morning looking after this problem to come in and see if the right thing had been cut.

So, it is very frustrating, because they have all the rights. We sign a contract saying that they have right of passage. And as soon as we do that, they have every right, and they don't miss any opportunity to remind you of that. That's the first thing that they do.

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:

Okay, well, it is very significant that your experience shows that the response takes time.


Yes, it takes a lot of time. They don't even listen to us.

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:

Well, there is a second point that interests me in your recommendations. You talk about a notion of a partnership between a person that has assigned their field and then the operator of the pipeline. I would like you to develop that notion and elaborate. Could there be an agreement saying that each of them could have a role to play on the easement?


Well, I think that the company, the pipeline company, will have a pipe, and then the land owners, not just us, but other land owners have their land on a given number of metres. And then, there could be a compensation for "x" dollars for each metre. So, you are a real estate holder. If the value of TQM is four dollars ($4.00) per share in the stock market, and then your land is a dollar and a half ($1.50), let's say six ($6.00) to round it off, it would be four ($4.00).

So, you could participate in the prosperity of the company if you want, for example, something like that. I mean it would be up to everybody to figure out along the road. Those who want to do so could do so, and do so without penalty, fiscal penalty, because then they are going to pay indemnities which we will have to pay tax on.

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:

Okay, what about the notion of partner? Could that also be included in another sense or understood in another sense, so that it means to control or give framework to this easement, giving access for recreation?


No, I wouldn't encourage that, because it is a dangerous area. They will look after the security of their pipeline. It is true, but it is still a dangerous area. I would never say go play around the refineries here, or I wouldn't tell my kid to go play around a pipeline either, for sure. I believe it is a dangerous area. I used to not know how strong pressure was in those pipes. Now that I know, I don't want to know about getting anywher near a pipeline, for sure.


Okay, Mr. Cloutier.


Yes, Mr. Alvarez, the question of partnership, if I understand correctly, would you be interested in a financial compensation for the easement on your land? Do I understand you to say that being a partner would mean the possibility instead of having financial compensation, to have a possibility to replace that financial compensation by, for example, shares in TQM?


Well, that's not my case right now, because we have very little land left. I have no more space to build anything, but those who have a possibility, and a lot of people have the possibility and that could do it, could be interested. It is not just to sit down on a lot and say, well, we have the law of public utility on our side, good-bye, you know, because it seems to me that that's an outdated attitude.

They could develop partnerships to say you have the land; we need the land. It has to be a win/win situation for both sides. They should have a more community-minded spirit. And then, the people would get involved in their project. The pipeline would be worth it for owners. It wouldn't be only a nuisance, because right now all you see are people who see the things the same way, not just us. I notice that everybody sees it as a nuisance.

So, if there was more involvement, it would still be a nuisance, but at least a nuisance that would give you back something, not only a problem in the winter, not only a problem of cutting down trees, but something else, a partnership where both sides gain.

I think that the mentalities should change today, that the public should be involved in these projects. I don't know if I responded properly to your question.


Well, I just wanted to know a little bit more about the kind of compensation you want.


Well, yes, it could be shares in the company. For example, a land owner, instead of paying a thousand dollars ($1,000.00) an acre or two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) an acre, that they offer something, let's say, your land today is worth this much. Tomorrow, it might be worth something else. We don't know what offer and demand -supply and demand is going to be.

So, you give one point two five percent (1.25%) on the value of the shares of TQM. You wouldn't then be penalized by taxes. And then, the day that you sell your shares in TQM, then you will pay the taxes, but, in the meantime, you are building up capital. I think it is the best way of doing it. I mean they do it for themselves.

So, I think that they should involve the people that they are talking to, to involve them in the company, because they want to register the land. So, registering the land involves adding it, once it has been registered, to the books of the TQM. Once it is added to the value of the TQM books, it becomes their property. Don't forget that, because it becomes their property in perpetuity, because the verticality of the land surface area rights.

So, once there is the easement on your land, you can do nothing but give them everything that they want. They even ask you to sign all papers that they required to push their rights even further. They give you nothing, but they take everything. So, they ask you too much. And it takes a long time. I mean, I am a novice here, but it took me six (6) months looking into it a little bit, and I only scratched the surface, because I think there is still things that I haven't even seen yet. It is very, very long. So, that's why, at a certain point, you talk about contracts that should be more clear without hidden clauses or clauses that you don't understand, the right of assignments that you hand over to them. You have to be a very learned person to understand what's going on. So, I mean, for me, it wasn't easy.


Earlier on, you were talking about problems with follow-up that took six (6) years to fix, and it finally got fixed when you spoke to Mr. Trudelle. Now, using that experience, did you have any ideas on ways that we could achieve the follow-up on problems that might arise in this kind of project?


Well, let them be closer to the public, have better contact with the public, so that, each year, somebody comes by, and they check to see whether the pipeline is leaking. Well, they could also check with the owners to see if there is any leaks in the partnership, that they should be more social and social-minded. It would be very easy for them to do that. All they need to have is some willingness, because they have the means. They just need the will.


Are there any forms of organization that could help to promote that will and make it into a constraint and not a simple choice?


Well, yes, they should be obliged by law to make the signs, post signs. I posted signs myself, and I put floating fence there, too, a snow fence. I mean then the ski-doos stopped, and the four wheels stopped. And all that stopped going by our place, but they said, oh, you have no right to put up fences. You don't have a right to put barriers. We can go on our easement as long as we want. Well, I needed something to stop it, because it never stopped. We had to keep on adding land to stop the four- wheel drive from digging up our land. We had to fill up the holes with land.

So, there should be something to help prevent the problems, not only correct the problems after incidents happen or after conflicts happen, but to prevent these things happening by putting up signs. I don't see why they don't put up signs on their easements. It would be much easier to do so.


Well, thank you very much, Mr. Alvarez.


Mr. President, I would like to add one thing. In the preliminary plans of the promoter, there is a spot where they want to cut trees on my land, and it is very nice trees that we have maintained. And right next to there, there is a place, an area, that is not wooded. So, why can't they respect that hundred and thirty-seven (137) metres by thirty-two (32) metres, and don't cut down the trees for no reason? It is not worth it. There is an area with no trees right next to it. I mean it really makes me ill to see that there is a prairie there, and they could use that.


Okay, your message has been recorded, thank you very much and thank you for your serious presentation. We can see that a lot of thinking went into it and a lot of... Now, we are aware of the problems that it causes you.


So, we hope that, socially, it helps other people as well.


Okay, Jocelyn Gravel, could you come forward, please? Good evening, Mr. Gravel.


Good evening, I would like to present my brief. I looked over the TQM documents concerning the pipeline between Lachenaie and the United States and recent newspaper articles published in Quebec newspapers, and I have noticed that this is a major project for the economic advancement of the east of Montreal and Quebec.

The Lachenaie/United States line should be retained, because it showcases the potential of gas distribution by Quebec and Montreal. This has the effect of increasing the capacity in natural gas in the east of Montreal, and promoting the implementation of industries with high energy demand. It is so difficult to obtain the implementation of these broad projects such as the TQM pipeline that I must come in to support it.

The other pipelines that are proposed do not go through Quebec and go through the Maritimes to the United States, excluding Quebec and Montreal. So, on that point, I would like to quote you something. In the newspaper Les Affaires for the 19 July to 25 July, it says the following:

"If the Trans Canadian pipeline is a strategic element for setting up a multi-energy hub for gas and petroleum, it should come through Montreal, the basis of penetration for the markets into the New England region".

It also says:

"Our preoccupation is from the idea that if the east and west gas are in competition, the only people to profit will be Quebec and Ontario".

So, this is the Minister David Harrigan from Nova Scotia, who says that. So, he also says that they would get better prices at our expense.

Now, for me and people near me, I cannot understand how they can write things like that. I think that we have to do something, because if it goes by us, we are going to say once again, oh, we have nothing here. They always get it everywhere else.

Now, the way the pipeline is placed along Pointe-aux-Prairies and the golf course proposed by the City of Montreal does not affect the development potential or the environment in a very serious way. The construction of the pipeline already creates nearly four hundred (400) jobs, temporary jobs, and eight (8) permanent jobs. I have already worked on similar projects in the west of the island and in southern crown, and I can tell you that it creates good jobs.

It is even difficult to retrace that pipeline just looking at it, once the pipeline is buried, and the soil is replanted. It is important that Montreal and Quebec be considered as important in the distribution of energy, because you can't see it. If you look at even farmers or animals, nobody can detect that the pipeline went through there. So, it is important that Montreal and Quebec be considered as major players in the distribution of energy in North America.

And this project increases the potential for using natural gas in Quebec. This energy is clean and renewable, and must be preferred over others. This pipeline does not affect the infrastructures, the roads, or the sewers, and they are protected by the drilling techniques. So, you shouldn't stop development when the environmental impact is so low.

As an old employee from Chem, I can tell you that the other refineries in the east of Montreal, except for two (2), are now closed. There are a lot of jobs related to the petro-chemical and gas sectors that are underexploited. There is a lot of potential to produce, in the field of petro-chemicals, energies that are low cost and competitive. And the quality of labour has been well recognized, and they are only waiting to have new projects in employments of this kind.

In August, 1991, I went to Chemtec, and I was on the committee for labour and protection of jobs. So, I was part of a committee. We had the Productivity Plus Inc. Company do a study of the impact on the petro- chemical industry. It said in that chapter that the importance of natural gas could be a good derivative for the plants. So, we don't have enough natural gas in Montreal to, however, operate that refinery.

The TQM pipeline promotes job creation directly related to pipeline construction and maintenance, and will promote the creation of jobs in fields related to companies with high energy demand.

I would not be happy if I did not come in and give my positive support to the TQM project.

The City of Montreal and the MUC will receive major sums of money, so that the pipeline can go along the proposed mapping. Private individuals will also receive compensation. So, as a resident of Rivière-des-Prairies and user of the park Pointe-aux-Prairies, I would like the agents by the city to - that the money received by the city be used for the needs of the Rivière-des-Prairies and the Pointe-aux-Trembles and park Pointe-aux- Prairies areas to create jobs. I think that we all have suffered from the closing of the plants in the recent years, and that is why I have come here to support the TQM project.

Thank you for the time that you have given me, and I am sure that you will be able to make the right decisions on the right recommendations, thank you.


Thank you, Mr. Gravel, concerning these recommendations, the Commission has a mandate to make recommendations and send them into the government, to the Ministry of the Environment. And then, the Ministry of Environment makes the decisions. We make recommendations. They make decisions.

You want to make recommendations that two (2) others made. Two (2) other people before you spoke about the use of compensation for the people, the individuals, living along the proposed pipeline, and you mentioned that the sum should be used in a sector where there will be jobs created. So, this recommendation is recorded.

You had experience in building another pipeline, you say. Aside from your support for the project and your very enthusiastic support for your project, in your experience, are there any measures that you could bring forth whether in terms of construction or follow-up, because, as you know, some of the land owners have problems? So, in your experience, do you think you could list any recommendations to that effect?


Well, I can tell you that on the pipeline that I did from the start to the clean-up. And when you are at the end and you have finished the clean-up, if there is any fences, we rebuild the fences. If there is any stone walls, they are rebuilt, but over time it is possible that some people in ski-doo and so on cut the fences or so forth, but the same thing happens elsewhere, even if there is no pipeline. If you have a road that is used in the summer to go to your chalet, your cottage, people use it, and they cut down your fence and so on. People do not go there, because there is a pipeline. They go there, because they decide to drive that way.


Mr. Paré.

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:

Okay, sorry, I was taking notes on your answers. So, I would like to come back, Mr. Gravel, to the main concern of your brief. You talk about outlook for economic development, and you say that it creates jobs related to construction and maintenance. A pipeline will promote the creation of jobs in fields related to the high energy demand sector. So, on that, do you have any personal comments to make regarding the potential for development related to that project?


Well, if you look at the east of Montreal, and remember that co- generation project, well, to do co-generation, that takes a lot of energy. So, you use gas energy and other energy to create electricity. And they didn't do this in the east, because Gaz Metropolitain has gas, but they do not have the necessary cubage to get into that kind of a business.

And when I quoted the Affaires newspaper, there is another pipeline from Quebec to the Maritimes and to the Ile des Sables. So, then, it would go to New England, but it would be better to go through here to make this a hub. If this is not a line, they will go straight that way to the United States. And instead of going through Quebec, it is going to go elsewhere, simply stated.

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:

Okay, thank you, Mr. Gravel.


Mr. Cloutier; well, that would conclude our questions. Thank you very much, Mr. Gravel, and I'll ask Mr. Jean Gauthier to come forward for the Société de développement économique de Rivière-des-Prairies et Pointe- aux-Trembles.


Good evening, gentlemen, as general manager of Société de de développement économique de Rivière-des-Prairies, tonight I will be presenting our support to the project of a natural gas pipeline.

Very quickly or to give you a summary of this project, this project between Lachenaie and East Hereford is necessary considering that the pipeline that currently transmits natural gas to the New England market is at the end of the lease. The owner plans to retake possession of the pipeline and convert it into an oil pipeline in order to meet his supply contracts for the U.S. market. Trans Quebec and the Maritimes have to construct a new gas pipeline. Now, this project will help maintain exports of natural gas to the United States among other things.

The project will also help increase the potential use of natural gas in Quebec by consolidating the existing systems of Gaz Metropolitain, Ile de Montréal, and in the Eastern Townships, and Montérégie, and, secondly, encourage the development of new markets in regions that are not yet served by natural gas including the Coaticook region.

The positive impacts of the projects in general, well, it is an investment of two hundred and seventy (270) million dollars, the creation of four hundred (400) direct temporary jobs, the creation of eight (8) permanent positions, a supply of goods and services by companies throughout the line. We are talking about municipal and school taxes. The gas pipeline is valued at three hundred and fifty dollars ($350.00) per metre, amounting to three hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($350,000.00) per kilometre. There is also monetary compensation for owners along the line.

Other positive impacts: Foster economic development in terms of consolidating existing systems on the Island of Montreal, St. Mathieu, Contrecoeur, Sorel, Tracy, and the Eastern Townships, and finally in respect of a supply contract and maintenance of exports of natural gas to the United States.

Now, talking about the line, there has been an environmental (inaudible) and safety of population. The line suggested by the developer and that has been submitted to the various governmental authorities: the Quebec Environment Ministry, the National Energy Board, the CPTAQ, and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. With respect to the Island of Montreal, the MUC's Development Committee will also address the project.

Now, considering the line, safety measures and emergency plans will be developed with the municipalities to protect the people in case of damage to the gas pipeline.

Now, mitigative measures would also be used throughout the construction of the pipeline to preserve, if possible, the parks and territories of the island and preserve the visual impact that could result from the passage of a pipeline.

Special measures will also be taken for the crossings of various waterways, major waterways, using the technique of directional drilling. All existing infrastructures, roads, highways, railway lines, canals, and so on will be protected using the horizontal drilling technique.

The economic impact of the project, now, quite apart from the necessary investments for this project, you have to anticipate the economic spin-offs that could result from such a project throughout Quebec, particularly in the Montreal area.

More and more, the markets in the northeastern United States are opening up, and in several sectors, there are more frequent exchanges with the United States. And the U.S. northwest has become nothing less than the natural market, natural and local market of Quebec. Montreal is now in direct competition with Portland, Boston, and New York.

The companies that wish to set up operations or invest or reinvest there now have the choice of business places. These are competitive advantages offered by one location rather than the other, and that's what determines the direction of investments these days.

Now, due to a series of economic and political factors, Montreal, over the past few years, has had its share of economic problems: high unemployment, disinvestment. Departures and closures of companies, and quite often over the past decade, have been quite common in Montreal, and this is even more so for eastern Montreal.

Opportunities of economic development related to this project, as perceived by our organization, is highly interesting for the entire Quebec society, and more particularly for Montreal.

As the V.P. of Gaz Metropolitan, Mme. Suzanne Brochu, said, the TQM project towards PNGTS, Portland Natural Gas Transmission System project, is strategic. It will help consolidate in the east of Montreal the supply of natural gas for existing companies.

The realization of the project would also facilitate the arrival of new investments such as the co-generation project that has been in the works for several years. This project represents about two hundred and eighty (280) million dollars and should be supplied with natural gas.

The competitive prices of natural gas will also help increase the competitive nature of our current and future companies.

It is for all these reasons that the working group on the recovery of Montreal created by the Bouchard government has favoured and supported the realization of the Lachenaie/East Hereford gas project. The SODEC R.D.P./P.A.T. can only support this decision.

For the east of Montreal, this project will have full and direct consequences: making the supply of natural gas more secure at a competitive price; allow for the supply of gas at higher pressures; reduce interruptions during peak periods; reduce the eventual cost of the construction of a co-generation plant, if it ever comes to light; to position the east of Montreal as having a comparative asset in terms of location of companies and industries that use a lot of energy; consolidate an existing industrial base; foster the creation of jobs for the future maintenance of the gas pipeline.

Hence, the petro-chemical sector, despite the closure of four (4) out of six (6) refineries at the beginning of 1980's, remains a major employer in the eastern region. However, this sector, that of refineries as well as related companies, continues to be very fragile. Several existing companies are still floating and have difficulty remaining competitive. They must upgrade rapidly and reduce their operating costs. The TQM project is therefore a major issue for these people and for the companies in the region.

Now, with respect to the co-generation plant, if it is ever developed, it will also ensure the consolidation of several companies, as well as maintaining the existing companies. By consolidating the energy industry in the east of Montreal, we will be able to create new synergies, related companies, high energy consumption companies, service companies, etc.

The SODEC Rivière-des-Prairies/Pointe-aux-Trembles talks a lot about the east of Montreal, and I am sure you can understand why. However, our favour for the project can also be justified by the various spin-offs that the MUC can benefit from. In fact, despite the absence of several professional companies in the eastern sector, the latter, i.e. engineering, environmental analysis, land appraisal, etc., will also have spin-offs, positive spin-offs, in the region.

This gasline project is also a follow-up to the recent Quebec energy policy. In fact, the gas project, the pipeline project, as we have been able to read in the newspapers over the past few weeks, will be key in the Hydro Quebec strategy for northeastern America or United States. In fact, the convurgence foreseen between natural gas and electricity will allow Hydro Quebec, Trans Quebec Maritimes and Gaz Metropolitain to consolidate their position in the export market of the northeastern United States.

In addition, as stated in La Presse on July 11th, the PNGTS project is all the more important for Quebec, if the proposal of Trans Quebec Maritimes for the transportation of gas, natural gas, through Ile des Sables is accepted by the National Energy Board. In so doing through this TQM/PNGTS network, Quebec, and more specifically Montreal, will become a real hub for natural gas in Canada and the northeastern United States.

In fact, during a period of weak economic growth, all promising projects should be exploited to the maximum, and the energy sector is a sector of the future in terms of economic development. Quebec has competitive advantages in this sector, particularly in the sector of clean energies, and it would be disastrous to let such an advantage go.

Compensations for eastern Montreal, the construction of a pipeline generally requires the granting of a new right of way. We know that most of the land required by the developer right now belongs to the City of Montreal and the MUC. These rights of way are generally negotiated by the developer and the land owner subject to monetary compensation.

The region of eastern Montreal is often forgotten by the municipal decision-makers, because it is far from downtown. And it is forgotten by investors who create jobs, because it is far from their markets. And it is also forgotten by the municipal administration of a lack of funds. We think this is, therefore, an interesting opportunity based on the monetary compensation that the developer is prepared to pay to the City of Montreal and the MUC.

We believe, we understood, that the City of Montreal and the MUC will receive somewhere between nine hundred thousand ($900,000.00) and one (1) million dollars as compensation for permanent servitudes. And the city will also receive about nineteen thousand dollars ($19,000.00) in land taxes annually for the passage of this new system. Now, this is not an enormous amount, but it is important at a time of a limited budgets.

The SODEC R.D.P. cannot insist enough that it is important that these monies be used in the region of the eastern Montreal to compensate the people who would have to live with the inconveniences associated with the construction, maintenance, and presence of a gas system. The SODEC R.D.P. is asking the city, the CUM, and the BAPE to consider in exchange of the project, to consider reinvestment as compensation in the "parc nature" Pointe-aux-Prairies in the form of the granting of upstart of companies in the recreation and tourist area.

In conclusion, the SODEC R.D.P./P.A.T. is happy to have had an opportunity to express its comments regarding the TQM/PNGTS project. We fully support this project, because we believe it would be an additional asset for the economic development of Montreal and job creation in the east of Montreal.

We also support the organizations east of the city, who have taken a stand for the reinvestment in the sectors of Rivière-des-Prairies/Pointe- aux-Trembles of the amounts, compensatory amounts, that will be paid by Trans Quebec Maritimes in the city.

The east needs a lot of new money to support activities that can help the community. It is up to the city to decide on how to allocate this money. However, considering our expertise and our involvement in the community, we would be happy to assist and advise the city and the MUC in their choices.

Thank you very much for listening to us.


Thank you very much, Mr. Gauthier, you, like others before you, recommend reinvesting the compensation amount received by the MUC in the east, and you say more specifically that these amounts should be used to start up companies in the recreation and tourist area. Would you agree also if this money was allocated towards the development of the park of Pointe-aux-Prairies?


Mr. Genest, I believe that your question is related to the start-up of recreational and tourist companies. Now, if you take the nature park at Pointe-aux-Prairies and we continue to develop it, this would be part of recreational and tourist activities. This company already exists, if we can call it a company, but we are saying that if other companies that could be related to - other companies in Pointe-aux-Prairies that are interested in being developed, we would be very interested in seeing them come to light at the same time as Pointe-aux-Prairies.


Thank you very much, you also talked about companies that want to set up operations in the Montreal area, indicating that Montreal is now in direct competition with Boston, Portland, and so on. So, this competitive advantage edge is quite vital in terms of determining where to locate a company. Now, if gas is supplied to Boston through this project, isn't it a risk that there will be fewer companies opting for the competitive nature of natural gas supply in the east of Montreal?


Well, on that, Mr. Genest, look, I am not a specialist in these things, but I can tell you that we are in constant contact with the New Companies Start-Up Society, and we know that, in the east of Montreal, there is a lot of difficulty with respect to the start-up costs. And we know that with this pipeline passing through the east of Montreal, it would allow a lot of these companies to reduce their prohibitive costs, because most of these companies don't have the necessary powers or financial powers to reduce their costs.

I can't tell you, yes or no, that we will have more companies heading towards Boston, but I can tell you that if there is something in the east of Montreal, it is sure that a lot of the companies can be able to get their supplies easily from here in east of Montreal.


Thank you, Mr. Paré.

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:

Mr. Gauthier, you are the second person to have referred to a more specific project, i.e. a co-generation project. What can you tell us about this co-generation project? Who sponsors it, and where are we in terms of that?


I can tell you that I have been in the sector for several years, and this co-generation project has been in the works for several years. We have been hearing about it. There is a lot being said about it, but there is always lots of restrictions, limitations, environmental limitations, and all kinds that have prevented the project from seeing the light of day. Now, the question you are asking, you are wondering if the gas project will encourage this.

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:

Well, no, Mr. Gauthier, that was not my question. I just want to know if the SODEC is one of the organizations that are promoting this project, not in terms of investing in it, but are one way or the other involved in, I don't know, establishing conditions or carrying out feasibility studies and so on.


Well, we have been talking for several years with those who started out the project, particularly the people in the Government of Quebec who have tried to set up the co-generation plant. Now, on a regular basis, we have been meeting with people, but we are still discussing, because when it comes to the decisions, the decision-makers cannot go any further, but the SODEC is involved in terms of developing the co-generation plant, because once again this is a sustainable project and a job-creating project.

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:

You know, like I do, that most co-generation projects have been put on hold, on the back burner, for the past few years. Now, do you think this project can - and what sort of timetable are we talking about for this kind of project?


Well, that would be nice if I had an answer to that, but I would be - I mean people would support me more, but over the next few years, I don't know, say the next three (3) to five (5) years, we would like the co- generation plant to - well, we would like a final decision to be made on this, because this co-generation plant that we have been talking about for several years, at the SODEC, we feel that it can block other major projects, promising projects, because the co-generation plant is always in the background. Is it going to show up? Is it not going to show up?

Finally, we would like a decision made whether it is there or not over the next three (3) to five (5) years. One decision should be made for or against it, because it sort of blocks other energy projects that could come on board. Now, sometimes other projects come up, and they say, oh, no, the co-generation plant is what is important. We are more like a facilitator. We are a local economic development organization, but we don't make any decisions.


Mr. Cloutier.


Now, the quality of life in the east of Montreal is always an important item. It's a major concern. Now, the parks and green spaces for you are a means of meeting this whole notion of quality of life. Now, in SODEC's economic development plan in terms of the recreational or the outdoors sector, the importance of this sector in terms of growth and improvement of the quality of life, can you talk to us about the economic impact of this?


Mr. Cloutier, right now, we are part of a group that was set up by the MNA from the sector to create something called a Table (inaudible), which is a consulting committee for recreational and tourist activities. Now, one of the SODEC's priorities over the next three (3) years is to create in Pointe-aux-Trembles/Rivière-des-Prairies to create all kinds of activities and companies in the recreational and tourist area to develop this community.

What I can tell you is that right now, at the SODEC, what we think is that the Pointe-aux-Trembles and the Rivière-des-Prairies area is a diamond. It is a diamond in the rough for recreation and tourist activities. There is a lot of possibilities, but nothing has been done to help develop those, provide some structure to this sector. And we think that - well, we are pretty much an island. We are surrounded by water. I mean that alone would allow us to develop a tourist industry.

And right now, we are creating a committee for Pointe-aux-Trembles in particular and another for Rivière-des-Prairies to develop this sector. However, I must tell you that it is not easy, because everybody is not on the same wave length when it comes to the environment. Everybody has their own individual recreational projects, but we have to get all these together, do a collage and come up with something serious.

We are working very hard. We know that recreation and tourism would be a significant factor in the development of the east, even though pure economic development like the TQM project is also very important. Both go hand in hand. We think they could cohabit, if you get rid of all the mental restrictions involved.


Thank you very much, Mr. Gauthier, thank you for your presentation; we are going to take a break until ten after nine (9:10).



We will get back in session with Mr. John Burcombe.


Good evening, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to read our brief. It is not too long. The interest in the OCRA(?) movement in this project comes from its two (2) major goals, which is to make sure that there is rational use of natural resources and to involve the public in the decision-making processes.

Given the different levels of authorization required by this project, we always have to wonder why the developer, Trans Quebec and Maritimes or TQM, decided to get, first of all, involved in a detailed exam of environmental impacts before the Bureau d'audiences publiques or the BAPE, before the reason for being of the project in its current and future regional network was discussed. In fact, a justification of the project with regard to its extraprovincial implications comes under the jurisdiction of the ONE rather than the BAPE.

For us, the absence of an overall view, and particularly the absence of information on the American part of the project, the Portland Natural Gas Transmission System or PNGTS, has created a serious lack in the impact study by TQM.

Since its beginnings five (5) years ago, it was provided that the line of the PNGTS would go along the same easement of the Montreal oil line, that is the Montreal/Portland oil line which goes through Vermont and crosses the Canadian border near North Troy, Vermont, and Highwater, Quebec. Gaz Metropolitain or GMI, on page 16 of its annual report in 1996, indicates that the representatives of its subsidiary, Vermont Gaz, have deployed many efforts, so that the oil line should go through the northeast of Vermont. That is the PNGTS pipeline.

In fact, the pipeline submitted in March, 1996, by PNGTS for the approval of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of the United States or FERC was in conformity with the original plan.

However, in October, 1996, for reasons which remain obscure, PNGTS abandoned the Vermont line in favour of a new line which would go through New Hampshire. This change would change the point of crossing the border seventy-five (75) kilometres towards the east. That is near Pittsburgh, New Hampshire and East Hereford, Quebec.

The TQM impact study for the Quebec portion of the pipeline takes for granted that the crossing point will be at East Hereford without even mentioning the original plan. However, according to the information obtained in the first part of the public hearings, the original line which should go through Highwater was sixty (60) kilometres shorter than the current line.

As already indicated by letter to the Minister of Environment, Mr. David Cliche, and to the National Energy Board, we believe that the impact study by TQM is deficient and not in accordance with the Ministry's directives, so that the original line is not examined as an alternative to the current line.

Given that the main goal of the impact study is to identify and justify the least impactful solution, we find that it is unacceptable that the study does not even mention a line which is sixty (60) kilometres shorter than that chosen by the developer.

In these circumstances, Mr. Chairman, we believe that your Commission has no other choice than to say that there is not enough information to draw enlightened conclusions on the Lachenaie/East Hereford pipeline project.

This being said, we would like to make a comment in particular on the notion of so-called sustainable development and the functioning of the Ministry of the Environment and Fauna or the MEF.

For us, the notion of sustainable development is now devoid of its original meaning, because of the fact that these two (2) words have been taken up and interpreted by all kinds of people, who simply wish to green up their image. For us, this notion, which could be better expressed as fair development or equitable development, implies radical change in the use of resources, among other things, and especially energy resources by the industrialized world.

The current situation where three-quarters of world resources are used by one-quarter of world population is no longer acceptable. In North America, the consumption of resources must be reduced rather than continue to increase.

In this context, the interpretation given by the Gaz Metropolitain people to the words sustainable development in their opening statement is different than ours. It seems that the words continual growth would be better to express GMI's framework of operation.

It is certain that if the project of co-generation in the east of Montreal that other speakers mentioned tonight and the project for extracting magnesium from magnolia, which was mentioned by Gaz Metropolitain in their opening statement, if those two (2) projects are carried out, Quebec energy consumption will increase as a consequence. Also, the emission of greenhouse gases will continue to increase rather than decrease as stated by GMI.

We find the three (3) main objectives of sustainable development listed on pages 9-100 of the impact study as follow, and I quote them: "Ensure the viability of the ecosystem; protect, conserve, and support natural resources; protect and improve the health and well-being of human populations".

We wonder whether TQM and their partners have truly underwritten these objectives in the broad sense.

With regard to the role of the Ministry of the Environment and Fauna, following the first part of the hearings, we asked that the MEF should give details on their role with regard to surveillance and follow-up on the environmental aspects of the project. The response to our questions were not very reassuring.

The involvement of the Ministry will be limited to exercise of a certain control over the work of inspectors hired by the developers. This control seems to be rather superficial, because, for example, the tabling of reports produced by the developer's inspectors would be optional, and the Ministry would not have to examine the reports. In addition, the Ministry does not have to provide an estimate of resources that they would devote to controlling this project.

This trend towards self-supervision and the reduction of the involvement of the MEF has been happening over a number of years, and is part of an overall policy to deregulate and to cut the budget. This problem in relation with the smaller hydroelectric centrals was examined by the inquiry commission on the purchasing policies of Hydro Quebec for electricity from private producers, commonly called the Doyon Commission.

The Commission observed on page 594 of their report, and I quote:

"A flagrant lack and unfortunately still current lack of tools for analysis and the general knowledge among the MENDVIK and its successor, the MEF, to assume its reponsibilities".

In particular, the Commission concludes that the MEF must, and I quote once again:

"Reinforce the control and follow-up procedures for the conditions registered on the authorization certificates".

For more information on this subject, we have just tabled the section in the Doyon report which deals with the procedures and mechanisms for control. You can read there, for example, according to a Ministry witness, that, already in 1989, the MEF only had sixty-five percent (65%) of the human resources necessary to carry out its mandate.

Another subject that interests us is the involvement of the farm union, that is the UPA, in this matter. It seems to us that GMI has purchased the cooperation with the UPA with their project for extending the distribution network that they entitled "Project Agriculture". This project, which aims to hook up several large farms in the St-Hyacinthe region, would be subsidized fifty percent (50%) by the federal and provincial governments in the framework of the new program entitled "Infrastructures".

Finally, we have learned that the Commission for protecting the farm territory in Quebec, or the CPTAQ, is getting ready to hold a hearing on a request for using the Magog/East Hereford section of land for another use besides farm use on September 4th, 1997. We do not think that the CPTAQ should examine any part of the TQM project before the Government of Quebec and the National Energy Board have rendered their decisions on the project.

And I would like to add another point, Mr. Chairman. That is that some participants this evening already talked about the land rights in perpetuity. I believe that this ancient practice should be revised; that this practice is, in fact, granted to the holders of these rights, and it grants them something that can be very useful to them, but where the original owners have no control over the use of those land surfaces. So, I will conclude on that point.


Thank you, Mr. Burcombe, you mentioned on the first page of your brief that, on October 19, 1996, for reasons which remain obscure, the line of the project, of the Vermont project, was changed. Now, in the first part, for you, these reasons are obscure, and you talked about being close to markets, and humid zones, and the Montreal/Portland oil line. Are there any other elements, and do those reasons remain obscure? And for you, what would have been non-obscure responses to these questions?


Well, the fact that the impact study by the FERC in the United States does not examine the differences in detail between the two (2) proposed lines. There is no detailed comparison that has been made. There is only a few lines or a paragraph in a huge document that simply refer to the fact that there was another line that would go through Vermont without actually making an analysis of that proposed line.

There are certainly other reasons than simply the fact that there are customers in New Hampshire that can more easily be served. For example, the quote that I used, which comes from the Gaz Metropolitain annual report, indicates that they deployed a great deal of efforts to get this pipeline to go through Vermont.


It doesn't look like they put enough efforts into it.


Well, yes, that's what it looks like. So, for me, there are still reasons that we don't really know, and they haven't been clarified. So, I don't know if those reasons are going to come out finally or not.


Okay, thank you, now concerning sustainable development, you had a very severe criticism with respect to the concept as used by the developer. Now, the introductory discourse mentioned that natural gas is a transition energy, and it avoids using hydrocarbons which are more damaging to the environment. Now, for you, couldn't the project be considered overall in a favourable light in terms of sustainable development?


Well, insofar as this gas replaces other hydrocarbons that are more polluting and that emit more greenhouse gases, it can be advantageous, but the emphasis that has been placed in Gaz Metropolitain's opening statement is more on the new uses of the gases and the fact that there is growth and demand.

And I think that, for Gaz Metropolitain, the emphasis is always placed on growth and demand rather than in replacing other fuels. Gaz Metropolitain wants to use renewable resources like wood. Anything is good for competition in the life of Gaz Metropolitain. At least, it looks like it.


Thank you for your opinion on that. Now, you were speaking also with a great deal of conviction and severity regarding the MEF, when you said that their means for control and follow-up are, according to you, inadequate. What do you think the minimum essential means would be that the Ministry of Environment and Fauna should put in place for this project regarding control and follow-up?


Well, the answers state that there would be certain inspections that, I presume, are more or less mandatory regarding opening the construction site and regarding inspections at the time the developer has finished the work. So, it is certain that they have to have those inspections, but those inspections, I believe, should be held throughout the entire length of the pipeline. So, I think that if the developer will be working in six (6) different areas at a time, that you would definitely need more resources, much more than one (1) person to do that.

Now, the fact that the MEF is not prepared to indicate what kind of resources they could devote to this task concerns me. I think that there should be visits to important sites or areas that are particularly environmentally sensitive. And I don't think you can really put a figure on the actual estimates of what it would take.


I should mention to you that the preliminary impact study by FERC was tabled. Now, you mentioned that the CPTAQ should not examine the project before a decision is made by the Government of Quebec. Why do you say that?


Well, for me, the layout of the pipeline has not been set. It is not finalized. So, I think that there should still be an examination of the alternatives, and how things would be if the pipeline were to go through Highwater. And we ask that the National Energy Board demand the examination of this alternative, and that hasn't been done yet. And as long as the layout of the pipeline is not set, then there is no reason for the CPTAQ to examine the project.

This is a problem that we underline in other projects. Often, the CPTAQ issues an opinion even before hearings have been held on a project, and I think that's doing things backwards. I think the decision of the CPTAQ should come last in the list of decisions in general.


Thank you; Mr. Paré.

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:

Yes, Mr. Burcombe, I would like to know if, in light of the information you have in hand, if the Vermont alternative or what you refer to as the original plan is simply a theoretical alternative or if it has advantages that, for you, you believe it is preferential.


Well, at this point, we only have very limited amounts of information on an alternative layout, but, at first sight, you know that there is an existing easement that is that of the oil line. And, at first sight, it would seem that, at least, you should examine more deeply the possibilities for this alternative, and maybe find out more about the reasons why the crossing line was changed on the American side, and how this was done without any consideration for the impacts that it could cause on this side of the border.

I find that entirely strange, and I brought this situation up to the FERC. I don't know if they will respond to it or not, but I think that there must be some information somewhere on the alternative layout, so that at least we could get an idea to know whether it would be valid to look into it in more detail. Personally, I do not have that information now, and the developer was not, to this time, was not required to provide it.

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:

Do you consider that it would be desirable that projects of this kind, that cross a border between two (2) countries or two (2) provinces, should be subject to an inquiry by a joint committee rather than having the FERC on one side and the BAPE on the other?


Well, I think that this project certainly shows up the kinds of problems that can arise, if or when there hasn't been enough concertation or consultation between the two (2) sides. And I think that each side has its own jurisdiction that does not require any consideration on the other side of the border, but I think that this project really illustrates the kind of problems that can arise in that situation. You don't know what happens at other crossing areas.

It would seem that it is a question that you could look at other pipeline projects, and it seems that this was never brought up, that there could be a problem where the developer cannot agree on the crossing point, but I think that, at this point, there would be really a need for some kind of a joint examination of some nature.


Thank you, Mr. Burcombe; Mr. Cloutier. Mr. Burcombe, thank you for your presentation, and thank you for your answers; Mr. Jean-François Messier for the Regroupement pour le Développement en Partenariat à; Rivière-des-Prairies.


The Regroupement pour le Développement en Partenariat, it is a non- profit organization that serves as a multi-network, multi-sector permanent consultation committee for Rivière-des-Prairies. We represent the citizens, institutions, and community organizations to obtain consultation and promote local and social development of the neighbourhood.

We have read the documents from TQM. You have to understand that the gasline will cross part of the east of Montreal made up of, among other neighbourhoods, Rivière-des-Prairies. Now, our fear is that these projects have to do with the passage of this land through the Pointe-aux-Prairies park.

We asked for the opinion of different people in the community, and the Regroupement itself, it is not a specialist in environmental issues.

We checked with the Société de Biologie de Montréal, which is a non-profit organization that operates in a certain area of the park of Pointe-aux- Prairies.

Now, they talked about the discussions that they had had with TQM to try to mitigate the impact of the passage of this pipeline through the park of Pointe-aux-Prairies. It is following these consultations that all the documents that we checked and the people that we checked with, we believe that the environmental impacts of the passage of the gas pipeline in the park of Pointe-aux-Prairies have be reduced to a minimum. The "gazoduc" will also cross lands belonging to the City of Montreal.

Now, still based on our consultations and also the use of directional drilling and so on, we feel that the project is acceptable and would have fewer impacts on the environment. However, we are aware... Given the little expertise we have, we believe that your recommendations with respect to the way the pipeline will go through the island will help us protect the environment.

Apart from the money invested, we also want to point out the positive economic spin-offs of the project. We know that the pipeline will allow us to consolidate the natural gas supply system for Quebec, and facilitate industrial development opportunities in the east of the Island of Montreal, jobs, and so on.

Apart from our concern at the Regroupement, our major concern is social and local development of the community, and we hope - well, what we have seen in the documents presented by TQM for the gas pipeline, TQM estimates that the compensation to be paid to the MUC and the City of Montreal could amount to one million one hundred and seventy thousand dollars ($1,170,000.00). This does not include the taxes that will be generated by the passage of the line, which could reach nineteen thousand dollars ($19,000.00) per year.

So, we are asking the elected officials and the Ministry of Environment and Wildlife to reinject the financial compensation on the gas pipeline project or the TQM project, to reinvest that in local environmental projects. These amounts should be allocated fully to improvement, interpretation, and conservation projects for the east of Montreal with respect to the environment.

We believe that the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement should recommend to the Ministry of Environment and Wildlife that the compensation of one million one hundred and seventy thousand dollars ($1,170,000.00) be paid into a special fund that is fully dedicated to the improvement of the environment in the east of Montreal.

We believe that these funds should be administered in partnership with the citizens, the community organizations that are of the environment, and local development in Rivière-des-Prairies, Pointe-aux-Trembles. Thank you very much for listening to me.


Mr. Cloutier.


Earlier on, we had a presentation from Mr. Gauthier representing the Société de développement économique de Rivère-des-Prairies and Pointe-aux- Trembles. I would like to know if there is any relationship between your two (2) organizations, if you have had any discussions on this project, the TQM project, and is there any compatibility between your interests and the interests presented by the Société de développement?


Well, we know the Société de développement. We had been made aware based on our contacts that there was a possibility for them to want the money to be reinvested locally.

Now, economic development and developmental issues or community issues, improvements of parks or the park Pointe-aux-Prairies, based on the projects, I mean they are not always compatible with recreational and touristic projects, but anyway from what I heard from Mr. Gauthier earlier on is that they would like to see the money reinvested locally for development of parks and other environmental infrastructures at the MUC.

The MUC is going to put a lot of money into these, but the City of Montreal, too. When we go to them to ask for money to improve our parks, well, every time we go there, they say there is no money. There is no money for the east.

So, anyway, the monies that will be coming in right now almost miraculously through a gas pipeline project, we would like that money. We would like... Since the environmental impacts of this project will be felt in the east, we would like those monies to be reinvested in the east and not elsewhere. And I think other people have expressed their desire that they would like to see the money reinvested locally, and we would like to promote this idea as well.


Mr. Paré.

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:

Mr. Messier, I would like if you can give us a better idea of the objectives of the Regroupement de Partenariat.


We are part of the city's "Ville en Santé". This is a project set up by the City of Montreal. In the different cities, there have been meetings of citizens and so on that identify various points for the development of their neighbourhoods, environment being one of them in most neighbourhoods.

Now, at Rivière-des-Prairies, the Regroupement is made up of community organizations, institutional organizations, schools, the CLSC, the City of Montreal. Citizens also participate; ensure that organizations work together in joint projects. Instead of going all over the place in different directions, they should work together. That's why we say it is a multi-network project organization. We work with different organizations, and we are also multi-sectorial. So, we work with different sectors. We try to work together to meet certain concerns. I hope I'm answering your question.

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner:

Yes, but just to go a little bit further, I would like to know who your major interlocutors are. When you start something, when you start up a project, when you are addressing a particular issue, who do you talk to? Is it the City of Montreal? Is it the MUC? Is it somebody else?


Well, our major contact is the City of Montreal. We also deal with the Régie Régionale. We've got subsidies from the City of Montreal. We are trying to work with the monies available to create projects to meet the community's needs. We do business with the Régie Régionale, the City of Montreal. Those are the major partners. They are partners, but also when we go to our neighbourhood councils, we also ask for the development of the neighbourhood and different organizations.


Okay, thank you, now, you have pointed out something additional in terms of reinvesting the compensation paid, i.e. you want a recommendation that a fund be created, a fund that would be managed by the community. How, in your mind, could this actually take place, given your knowledge of the habits of the City of Montreal, the MUC, and the groups involved and so on? How would this happen?


Well, I'm not very aware of the legal framework, but my main concern has to do - it is just that these monies should not disappear in some consolidated fund somewhere. And we don't want them to tell us that, well, the money has been devoted, and then, the next thing we know, the money has been spent elsewhere, and it is no longer available. I mean the mechanism of a special fund, how it would work, I mean there have been special funds in other areas, different ministries. The Ministry of Revenue with, I don't know, Health, they have a special fund for employee ability and things like that.

Now, the mechanism is not all that important for me. What's important is that this money remain available. And if we need a representation from citizens, elected officials, the MUC, or the city, that we should have a committee that should have a project presentation, and these people should see if the project meets the concerns of the community, and if it has a structural impact in terms of the environment, in terms of interpretation, in terms of improving and conserving the environment.


So, you think a dedicated fund would have better guarantees.




Okay, thank you very much for your presentation.


Thank you.


Mr. David Johnston for the Association des Ingénieurs-Conseils du Québec, Mr. Johnston is absent. Mme. Carter, are there any requests for explanations? Now, I would like to reiterate the nature of the right of rectification. This would be a rectification to factual scientific information or data on specific points without issue of opinions and without debate; Mr. Gilles Barbeau. Good evening, Mr. Barbeau.


Good evening, Mr. Chair...


We were missing you there for a moment. We feel that we are a big family right now.


Good evening, too, Mr. Chair and Commissioners, first of all, I would like to point out that Mr. Jean Trudelle apologizes for not being able to attend this evening. He left for Calgary on business for two (2) days this afternoon. However, he will be back when the sessions resume in Granby. So, he will have the pleasure of checking in with you at end of the evening, if there is any corrections to be made.

So, I would like to start off with Mr. Poisson, who has a particular point that you raised earlier on regarding the comments of Mr. and Mrs. Alvarez.


Good evening, Mr. Chair, Mr. Commissioners, it was indicated that there was a difference between our preliminary negotiation plan and the surveyor's plan. Now, I would like to point out that we are not surveyors. This is a preliminary plan based on a graphic that we had.

Now, along the way, when we look at the certificate of location and the graphic that we have, we foresee that there are rectifications to be made. We will do so, if there are no... And any compensation will be adjusted based on the new surface areas, and the adjustment is never downward. It is always upward. If the surface area is smaller than ours, then the amount will remain the same, but once again I want to point out that we are not land surveyors. Thank you.


I have one very short point to rectify. It was indicated this evening on several occasions that the right of way of twenty-three (23) metres often went all the way to eighty-three (83) metres with a thirty (30) metre section on either side. I just want to point out that the right of way is still twenty-three (23) metres, and that the thirty (30) metres is just a controlled area to ensure that no interior work can damage the line. So, it is just to allow TQM to be informed of any work to be taken.

Now, with respect to the analysis, it was pointed out that we are expecting certain results. We have already submitted a preliminary report of the geotechnical studies done around Autoroute 40. The exhibit is D-21. At the end of last week, we received the final study and the latest analysis regarding these data, and everything will be transmitted to you in the coming days.

Now, with respect to the right of putting fences on the right of way, TQM will not prevent owners from closing access to their rights of ways with fences. So, I don't know if Gaz Metropolitain did not allow this, but I know that TQM will allow it, the same thing for signs regarding... or the fact that we could put signs on the right of way. Now, if the owner, during the negotations with the... If the owner says they need to have these kinds of signs, there will be no problem at all installing these signs. That's all we wanted to add.


Thank you very much, Mr. John Burcombe.


Just a short point, in Mr. Gravel's presentation, what I heard, he can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he indicated that natural gas was a renewable resource. I would like to correct him to say it is not a renewable resource.


Thank you very much, you are right. This rectification brings to a close our session this evening, thank you very much for participating. The Commission will continue its work on Wednesday in Granby at seven o'clock (7:00), thank you very much.


I, the undersigned, Official Court Reporter, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true transcription of the proceedings translated into English, to the best of my knowledge and ability.



Annagret Rinaldi

Official Court Reporter