Pipeline Blues Logo

Bureau d'Audiences Publiques sur l'Environnement

Séance tenue le 6 août 1997

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


Séance tenue le 6 août 1997, à19 h
Salle paroissiale Saint-Jean Bosco
900, rue Sherbrooke


SÉANCE DU 6 août 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
MOT DU PRÉSIDENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
LE PRÉSIDENT: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Coalition: M. RAYMOND CLOUTIER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
MRC Memphremagog: M. ROGER NICOLET et MR. PIERRE RIVERIN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
MAGNOLA: M. DENIS LECLERC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
PNGTS: MR. JOHN FLUMERFELT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
M. ONIDE GAGNÉ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50
M. JEAN-GUY DÉPôT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54
M. YVES ROBERT et MME LOUISE BARRETTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64
M. JEAN-GUY DÉPôT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73
MME MONIQUE EUGÉNIE TERRAL HERMAND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81

M. JACQUES ALAIN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84
M. NORMAND BENOIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84
M. JEAN TRUDELLE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84
MR. BRUCE MILLER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86
M. JEAN-GUY DÉPôT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87

                            SOIRÉE DU 6 AOûT 1997
                              MOT DU PRÉSIDENT

      Ladies and gentlemen, good evening, I wish to welcome you to the 
second part of the public hearings dealing with the extension of the 
TQM pipeline from Lachenaie to East Hereford.  I'm Camille Genest.  
I'm the President of this Commission, and I'm being assisted by Mr. 
Charles Cloutier on my right and Mr. Jean Paré on my left, who are 
additional members of the Bureau. 

      The other members of the team are Mme. Solanges Hudon, who is an 
analyst; Miss Mylène Savard and Mme. France Carter, who are our 
secretarial support people. The official stenotypists are Lise 
Maisonneuve for the French version of the transcription and Miss 
Annagret Rinaldi for the English version of the transcriptions.  And 
simultaneous interpretation services are being given to us by Mr. 
Francis Évandé.  And the secretarial person is Thérèse Daigle.  The 
technical services are being ensured by the Minister of Relations with 
Citizens and Immigration under the responsibility of Mr. Jean Métivier 
and Daniel Moisan. 

      The second part of the consultation process of the BAPE will be 
to hear the briefs presented to the Commission, and the presentation 
of these briefs can be done either verbally or by filing and then 
explaining one's brief.  Any person or municipality or group can take 
a position then on the project as a whole or any single element of 
this issue. The participants are being asked to come and present their 
briefs.  I'll go under the order in which they have registered, which 
has been agreed on with Miss France Carter.  

      All the documents relative to the second part of the 
consultation process are available in the consultation rooms, as well 
as the stenographic notes.  And the consultation centres are in the 
library of Coaticook, the Memphremagog library, the municipal library 
of Ste-Julie, and the municipal library of Granby, the Roussin 
community centre, and the two (2) permanent offices of the BAPE in 
Quebec City and Montreal, as well as the central library of the 
University of Quebec of Montreal.  The documents as well are available 
during the hearings.  You simply have to speak to the secretary of the 

      I would also remind you concerning the procedure of evaluation, 
the impact on the role of the BAPE.  There was a first part of these 
hearings where the participants who wished to were able to ask 
questions of the Commission.  And then, afterwards, we put these 
questions to the project promoters and other resource persons.  
Additional questions were addressed to these latter people after the 
first part of the hearings.  The answers have been filed in the 
consultation centres. 

      Now, this evening, we are going to start the second stage of 
this process, that is to say the second part of the process of the 
public examination.  Once we have finished hearing the briefs, the 
Commission is going to analyze them, and then will integrate them into 
its own analysis of this project.  The analysis and the 
recommendations of the Commission will then be summarized in a report, 
which will be given to the Minister of the Environment and Fauna on 
October 9th, 1997.  The Minister has, according to the regulations, 
sixty (60) days to make this report public. 

      As concerns the procedure of the second part of the hearings, 
the schedule which we have foreseen is the following.  There are two 
(2) sessions:  the session of this evening and the session tomorrow 
evening here in the parish hall of Jean Bosco in Magog. 

      Before asking the first participant who has registered to start 
their presentation, I would like to remind you what  the ground rules 
are for the second part of the hearings. Once the people have finished 
presenting their briefs, the Commission is then going to ask questions 
in order to make sure that they have really understood all the 
arguments that have been presented or to get additional details or 

      In addition, there is a right to rectification in order to 
correct certain facts or inexact information or errors.  This right is 
available to all, and it can be used at the end of each session.  
Those who wish to use this right to rectification should advise Miss 
France Carter, Mylène Savard, or Thérèse Daigle, who are at the back 
of the room.  In addition, at the end of each session, there is going 
to be a period for rectification of facts or necessary data.  

      The right of rectification only applies to factual issues.  It 
doesn't apply to opinions, any of the opinions which have been 
expressed by any person here, and it can only be used to correct facts 
or erroneous data, which would have been stated during the session. 

      The Commission would like to remind you that the Commission is 
always trying to ensure that there is a serene climate in these 
hearings, and I would like to point out that contemptuous words or 
statements are absolutely contrary to the smooth procedure at this 
kind of hearings.  And I hope that we have a good evening and a good 
second part of the hearings on this project. 

      Now, I would ask Mr. Raymond Cloutier to come and present his 


      Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Commissioners, my name is 
Raymond Cloutier, and I'm a graduate of the Environment Management 
Program, graduate program, at the University of Sherbrooke.  And 
therefore, I'm a consultant in environmental management.  

      I've filed this brief as a representative of the land owners 
concerned by this pipeline, which brings together about fifty (50) 
property owners who are affected by the route of this pipeline through 
the Eastern Townships.  I'm going to be very brief in order to leave 
time for other people to express their opinions concerning the 
proposed route. 

      I'm going to talk to you about two (2) main reasons for which I 
believe you should reconsider the route.  There is the economy, and 
then there is the environment. 

      Gentlemen, since the 16th of June in Pointe-aux-Trembles until 
the hearing at East Hereford on July 2nd, the promoter, while 
presenting his project, mentioned that the Magnola project would be 
going to be building the pipeline before (inaudible).  

      The Magnola project has now apparently been put on the shelf 
because of an increase in costs of about fifty (50) million dollars.  
That is to say a twenty-seven percent (27%) overrun in terms of the 
total cost of the project.  There is this increase of the cost, 
therefore a reduction on the profitability of the pipeline.  Does this 
mean that this may delay the carrying out of this project?  In fact, 
it may mean that it may never go through. 

      Mr. Michael Avedesian, the Vice-President and Chief Executive 
Officer of Métalurgie Magnola has confirmed, and I'm quoting him, that 
"the company hoped to find another creative idea in order to reduce 
costs.  So, we are working very hard to reduce costs and make sure 
that we get an acceptable level of profitability for our Board of 
Directors, who must make a decision this fall". 

      Mr. Chairman, another creative idea, don't you think like us 
that the promoter has just lost his main argument, which was the main 
argument supporting his project?  And he presents to us a project 
which is not an extension, but a new construction in terms of the 
Lachenaie and Quebec/New Hampshire frontier pipeline in order to 
supply the PNGTS system by the TQM pipeline. 

      We have learned that the PNGTS has been planning for several 
years building a pipeline on the Montreal Pipeline right of way, which 
goes through the frontier just west of Highwater, Quebec, and North 
Troy, Vermont.  In the initial application of the PNGTS application in 
March, 1996, the idea was that they were going to build on the right 
of way of PNGTS.  

      And then, suddenly in the fall of 1996, we learned that PNGTS 
withdraws their applications in order to make sure that the entry into 
the frontier would be at East Hereford, Quebec/Pittsburgh, New 
Hampshire.  This means that it is going to prolong this pipeline sixty 
(60) kilometres more, and it is going to therefore gobble up a large 
new territory in the Eastern Townships. 

      It seems to me a that a week doesn't go by without us hearing 
the announcement of some kind of pipeline project, explaining what 
measurements are going to be taken. We can imagine there are going to 
be projects which will cost ten (10) billion dollars. Nobody can 
seriously argue that all these projects are going to be  approved.  

      When we examine them a little closer, for instance, the comments 
of the chairwoman, Betsy Moler, who runs the U.S. Federal Regulatory 
Commission, at an Oil Patch Group lunch in Calgary, she has stated 
that certain of those projects would be approved in the States, if 
they have industry support.  Always according to Mrs. Moler, the FERC 
approach is to let the market choose who the winner is going to be.  
So, we can understand why they are looking for so many potential 
clients.  The promoter himself has stated this to us. 

      In terms of the project that we are concerned with here, there 
are no real clients, real existing clients, at this point on either 
side of the border.  On the Canadian side, with Magnola disappearing, 
we have noted that there are potential clients however.  

      On the U.S. side, there is only three (3) potential clients.  
One hasn't yet even made a request for energy conversion from the 
Secretary, Department of State, and the other two (2) are finalizing 
those applications.  After that, there are going to have to be 
certificates of atmospheric emission, water use, controlled or 
uncontrolled, rejection, delocalization site certificates, etc.  And 
then, after that, they have to make an application to get a 
construction permit and then build.  And they are always talking about 
this project being for the end of 1998. 

      If we think back now to the evening during the 10th, there was a 
question of (inaudible).  This was a picture which isn't in any way 
scientific.  We are talking about three (3) players with a common 
goal, which is the New England market.  There are only two (2) lines 
in this whole portrait which is between eight (8) and the ten (10), 
and this is why. 

      Hydro Quebec is setting up an partnership with Enron from New 
England and Trigen Energy from New York, whose headquarters is in 
Texas.  And the specialty of Trigen is the offshore construction of 
pipelines.  However, Tatham Off Shore will have, first of all, when 
the moratorium is taken off on Georges Bank, it is going to be the 
distributor, and they have Enron in New England.  Tatham Off Shore 
already announced that they are going to build an undersea pipeline in 
order to serve the New England ranges, and this will be built about 
sixty (60) kilometres north of Portland, Maine. 

      Since the hearings of the Joint Public Review Panel of Nova 
Scotia, hearings which are supposed to lead to the moratorium being 
lifted, there is a consensus emerging both within the politicians and 
amongst the population that the construction of an undersea pipeline 
by Tatham Off Share is a solution.  Ralph MacLellan, the new Prime 
Minister of Nova Scotia, doesn't think there is any problem as long as 
there is a trunk going from Sable Island to Halifax.  And the groups 
who are opposed to the overland pipeline and the extraction of gas 
from Sable Island are starting to examine more closely the offshore 

      It would seem to us that the Tatham Off Shore project would be 
the one which would have the least impact on the environment, 
considering that it is going to be the Americans after all who are 
going to have benefit from the natural gas from Sable Island. Now, 
with the Maritime transfer, it raises a controversy in the Maritimes, 
according to Richie Mann, who is the Development Minister in Nova 
Scotia, who has criticized Gaz Metropolitain very severely, who says 
that they are trying to control the Sable Island project. 

      I have spoken with a person who was working on the Joint Public 
Review Panel. The person sent me a text, and I'm just going to take a 
few seconds to read to you what this person sent to me. 

      "There are now three (3) options to convey natural gas, all of 
them mainly to American markets: the Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline 
project, the Trans Maritime Pipeline project via Quebec, and the 
recent Tatham Off Shore Subsea proposal.  We expect, given its track 
record and past panel on Venture and Georges Bank, that the Joint 
Public Review will give the go-ahead for the offshore gas project". 

      The person in question said that she was prepared to give the 
Commission her name and telephone number on a confidential basis.  
However, if the Commission wants to contact this person, it would be a 
pleasure for me to give you this interesting information. 

      After having identified who the stakeholders are here, can we 
approve the route which has been suggested by the promoter?  

      Now, environment, the MEF directive concerning the project, 
which is Exhibit PR-2, we can read on page 5, chapter 2, a description 
of the relevant components, and I am quoting here: 
      "The impact study must describe the state of the environment as 
it exists in the studied zone before the carrying out of the project". 

      Table 2 prints a list of references of the main components of 
the natural and human environment, which are said to be described in 
the framework of an impact study on the construction of a pipeline.  
If you take table 2 on page 6, a directive of the MEF directives, the 
main component of this environment can be found in the - it can be 
found in the promoter's impact study, for instance, the aquatic 
environment or the semi-aquatic environment, the humid, the wetlands, 
the flooded lands.  

      For each one of these sites where the route is going to go 
through, the physical, chemical, bacteriological surface (inaudible), 
but we don't find anything about the substrata of the waterbeds, the 
use of the waterbeds, and the other bodies of water.  We don't find a 
word about that.  The (inaudible), the (inaudible), the sediment 
situation, we don't find a word about all of that. 

      The state of the environment, as it is presented, is not 
described anywhere in this impact study, which leads us to understand 
the reaction of Commissioner Cloutier, when this one says that the 
identification of the sensitive zones is a little bit thin and 
proposes the promoter make appendix 9 of the impact study more useful.  
Do you know that no inventory of the wetlands have been registered 
between Magog and East Hereford?  

      And what should we think about the response of the promoter to 
the concerns of Commissioner Cloutier concerning these very sensitive 
areas, that the Commission is going to now - and it now says it is 
going to inventory later on.  In the directive, it says that they have 
to be done before, and as they presently exist, and not later on. 

      The volume of water that the promoter is going to use in order 
to check the pressure is going to be analyzed before being sent back 
to the hydrographic network.  We think that the pious wishes of the 
promoter are simply going to remain pious wishes.  It takes seven (7) 
to ten (10) days to get results of bacteriological analysis of water.  

      We don't believe that these analyses or these tests are going to 
be produced, and the receiving milieu is going to, in fact, have to be 
inundated with everything that is going to be in the pipe.  We think 
that the bacteriological and chemical quality of the water is going to 
be affected by all these components.  They are not going to slow down 
the work in order to wait for the results of water tests. 

      Fauna and flora, the following subject of flora, the habitat and 
flora faunistic species, more specifically, those representing the 
particular interests are ones which are either vulnerable or possibly 
extinct, have led to a lot of questions and interest during the first 
part of the hearings.  Unfortunately, all these questions have 
remained without any answer, because the representative of MEF before 
the Commission has confirmed to the Commission that a fauna expert 
from the regional direction of this region will come and respond to 
our questions, but this expert has never turned up at the hearings.  

      In passing, is that the same representative of the Ministry of 
Environment, who has indicated to us that the impact study of the 
promoter was in conformity with the guidelines of the Ministry? 

      On the 27th of April, 1997, Mme. Boulet from the Regional 
Direction (inaudible) asked the MEF to make sure that they had a 
detailed analysis of the impact on the fauna or wildlife, and as for 
what reason the impact of going through bodies of water hasn't been 
detailed in the evaluation for each one of these cases where they go 

      The 27th of May, the Ministry presents the document which is the 
report of the Ministry concerning the advisability of this impact 
study.  The Ministry's general direction has advised the BAPE said 
that they are going to render this impact study to the public, that it 
seems to be in conformity with their directives.  

      Mr. Chairman, here is a note from Mr. Yves Marquis from the 
Ministry of Environment and Mr. Gilles Delagrave, who is the 
promoter's representative, dated May 8th, 1997, concerning the impact 
study, and I quote: 

      "The analysis of the final version of the study is weak 
concerning the treatment of several points.  The promoter talks about 
the directional drilling for the route, a method which will have very 
little impact on the ecosystems during and after the construction 
phase.  However, the alternative method, which is an open trench 
through the bodies of water, will create a major impact on the 
wildlife, and they are going to have...  The study doesn't indicate 
clearly what kind of (inaudible) measures will be taken in order to 
reduce the impact created by the second method, if this method is the 
one chosen.  In order to clear up any ambiguity, the promoter should 
indicate without any kind of ambiguity that they intend to use the 
directional drilling method, this one presenting the least impact from 
an environmental point of view". 

      What is this note dated May 8th?  What was the point of it, if 
there was already (inaudible) the promoter is going to respond to this 
letter?  And what about the route which would have the least impact?  
It would be a good idea to read the response of the promoter during 
the exchange that he had with Commissioner Paré concerning the 
techniques of integrating into the landscape if they are going to 
create a new corridor. 

      It was during evening 6, and amongst the elements of the 
response of the promoter to questions of Mr. Burcombe concerning the 
possible changes in the route, the promoter doesn't answer the 
questions.  He only talks about the American project. 

      We should then see the comments of the Commissioners, the 
response to Commissioner Paré's comments concerning which routes are 
going to be used.  We cannot understand how the promoter can state to 
the Commission that the initial project has been studied, now under 
study for several years, and that the only documents produced for this 
project are very preliminary ones.  There has never been any corridor 
study of PMPS.  

      The promoter said that PNGTS changed their route because of the 
wetlands, which they would have to go through.  It is true that there 
are more wetlands on the PNGTS route, and much more of the route is in 
the United States.  I have a slide here that I would like to put up on 
the screen.  We can see here the route of the PNGTS, what's in the 
impact study.  We can see that it goes here at Groveton.  It goes 
around the mountain to then come through here on the other side of 
Goron.  Then, from here, it is the same right of way as the PNGTS, 
which is the Montreal Pipeline. 

      If we look at the difference in terms of the distance to the two 
(2) different routes, the dotted line is the initial route.  And here 
we can see, after having gone through the frontier, New Hampshire 
frontier and going around the mountain.  We come back here to join the 
initial route in order afterwards to continue onto Portland.  

      So, it is very clear that, between Highwater and Goron or the 
difference between Pittsburgh and Goron, they are certainly going to 
go through less wetlands than between Highwater and Goron, but the 
question is:  Should we let this pipeline go through the Quebec 
wetland simply to allow the company to use this road?  There is 
already an existing right of way. 

      Now, if we look afterwards at what follows, what the people of 
the United States need, you have the route here, and you have the new 
line which is being constructed. In my humble opinion, my simple 
opinion, is that if the route came through Vermont to here, we don't 
have to go through here.  We don't have to go through Canada at all.  
We simply have to take the same right of way.  If it doesn't work, we 
know a little while ago I was discussing the fact that Tatham Off 
Shore is going to come with their project.  

      If we look at what the TQM has in mind is if we look at the 1996 
here, we can see that this was the existing right of way of Montreal 
Pipeline.  There is no new route in 1996.  And if we look at the Sable 
Island site here, if Tatham Off Shore builds a direct -
 builds it as the crow flies offshore underneath, under the sea, then 
it will arrive here in New Hampshire in the Rockingham or Portsmith 
counties.  The pipeline will simply continue on the already existing 
PNGTS route, and there will be a couple of companies, such as Waussau 
and Lewington, who are prepared to do this work. 

      How come, Mr. Chairman, that the promoter can permit itself not 
to comply with the Ministry directives that said that you have to come 
up with a project which has the least impact?  We have to find a new 
report, Mr. Chairman, which you are going to give to the Ministry, and 
a note to the effect that the promoter, in fact, did not comply with 
the directive of the Ministry. 

      Recommendation, given everything that this Commission has 
disclosed, it would be very difficult, Mr. Chairman, to recommend to 
the Minister that the promoter can use anything other than the 
existing Montreal Pipeline.  And especially after having heard about 
the Tatham Off Shore project, this offshore project is surely the one 
that is going to have the least impact.  

      In the eventuality that the Commission intends to recommend to 
the Minister to approve this project, I would like, before you make 
such a decision, to draw your attention to the article by Elizabeth 
Brubaker, who is the Executive Director of Environment Probe, which is 
a division of Energy Probe Research Foundation of Toronto, an article 
that is contained in Fraser Forum, the Fraser Institute of Vancouver's 
monthly paper, which talks about property rights in defence of nature.  
You will find it in appendix 1 of my brief.  This article deals with 
the whole issue of expropriation.  You know that the promoter is going 
to have to expropriate quite a bit of territory, a large area, if ever 
you recommend this project to the Minister for approval. 

      Conclusion, although the approval or the refusal of certain 
projects can, in fact, become the law, in certain circumstances, it 
cannot be the case in all circumstances where this would deny the 
fundamental property rights of the land owners concerned. Without any 
right of access, the property owners cannot enjoy the titles that they 
have acquired to the property, and the only way in which they could do 
so is by, in fact, using their land.  

      The land owners concerned find themselves in a situation where 
they can't have access to the property to which they are entitled.  It 
is impossible for them to develop these projects or to do anything 
with it or even to sell them to anybody.  In fact, this land is 
absolutely useless to them, and they are (inaudible).  

      However, if the decision of this Commission said that the 
promoter could (inaudible) this project, we are going to have to look 
in your report and your recommendations to the Minister to make sure 
that the promoter applies article 22.4 of the law on the environment 
throughout the whole length of the route from Lachenaie to East 


      Mr. Cloutier, thank you very much for your presentation, could 
you perhaps file the brief that you have presented to us with the 


      Yes, yes. 


      Please, thank you. 


      Yes, you have a good memory. 


      Now, talk to us a little bit about the coalition of property 
owners concerned by the pipeline whom you represent, the make-up, the 
way they function, their goal. 


      I was approached in June.  There was a group of land owners 
concerned here in this region of East Stukely and Hereford, people who 
didn't know too much what a public hearing was.  I had had the chance 
of participating in a couple of these public hearings before in the 
past.  These people were filled with fear, the idea that they were 
fighting a big machine, and TQM is a super big machine.  How could 
they imagine coming up with the questions and having the answers they 
wanted?  We had to work out some kind of strategy.  

      So, we sat down together, and we discussed the issue.  And after 
a certain number of meetings, we decided that everybody would take one 
sort of section or area of questions, and we came up with the 
questions and the answers that we had in the first part of the 

      For the second part, there were a couple of meetings.  We tried 
to analyze everything and dissect everything that had been said.  And 
the members decided they were going to talk about their personal 
experiences, and as well react to certain of the statements of the 
promoters, and that has led to the briefs that you have seen since 
last -that you have been hearing since last Monday, if my memory is 


      Yes, it is last Monday.  In your conclusion, you recommend 
finally that we use the existing right of way, but must I understand 
that this recommendation means that you agree with the energy need and 
the economic justification for this project? 


      We are not against the project.  We are not against progress in 
general.  What we have difficulty with is that, on the American side, 
they are going to decide and they are going to use this territory, 
because there are too many environmental consequences with this 
project, and we are going to have to, in fact, suffer these 
consequences and endure this, in fact.  

      If you look at the Ministry, they asked them to identify all the 
negative consequences, to put them on the table.  We don't know 
anything about it.  The Coaticook and Memphremagog MRC gave us a 
total, but is it that?  Has an inventory, in fact, been done?  We 
don't know.  We are sort of all in the dark about this.  When we look 
at the reason for which the route was changed, because we can read in 
the FERC documents that this was the reason supposedly, but I think it 
is going to be ten thousand (10,000) and the other is point seven (.7) 
miles or fourteen thousand (14,000) miles, we are going to go and come 
and invade twenty-seven percent (27%) more of the Quebec territory. 

      I just want to add one thing.  After certain personal 
communications with people in Nova Scotia, you can see that this 
Tatham Off Shore business is serious.  They were the first ones there.  
They were the ones who had to stop everything they were doing a few 
years ago because of the Georges Bank moratorium, but we know that the 
moratorium will be raised, will be lifted.  Now, somebody will have to 

      Look at Trigen.  Trigen is doing pipelines in Texas.  They have 
been doing it since oil was discovered in Texas.  It is not for 
nothing when you see the problem in East Hereford, when you know that 
Hydro Quebec was very close to Tatham and Trigen.  I mean (inaudible) 
to draw everything up on the board, but you know that something is 
going to give.  I mean why would...  Are they going to have to come 
and destroy our lands?  I mean if they can't go in a straight line, I 
mean, what are they going to do?  They are going to have the line 
directly in the United States.  I mean they are the ones who need it. 


      Okay, you gave us certain troubling facts, and certainly you 
said some things that made us think.  You talked about the conformity 
with the impact study and the conformity with the directive.  It is a 
bit worrisome, because the Ministry of Environment and Wildlife is 
responsible for the directives, and it also guarantees the conformity 
of any impact study with this directive.  Now, if there is a 
representative of the Ministry in the room this evening, if there are 
any inaccuracies that were raised, I would like those people to make 
certain rectifications at the end; Mr. Paré. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      Mr. Cloutier, when you talk about the possibility of an 
underground pipeline by Tatham Off Shore, I think it is a very, very 
interesting point, and you showed this with one of your slides earlier 
on.  We are seeing more and more that gas systems are increasing in 
North America, and they are going to be operating in two (2) 
directions and connecting different fields of extraction with 
different markets.  

      Now, one of the items behind the project under examination is 
supplying gas to New England obviously, but also other regions, 
supplying them with gas from western Canada basically.  So, there is 
competition between Canada and the United States, between western 
Canada and eastern Canada, the Maritimes eventually, if Ile des Sables 
is operating. 

      But we also know that connected to this project is the 
possibility of Quebec becoming the primary place or transitional point 
of gas, regardless of its origin.  This means that, among the 
considerations we have to examine, don't you think that we should take 
into account the fact that the project under examination is not only 
an alternative to Tatham Off Shore, but also an additional opportunity 
for Quebec to play a role as the hub, a gas distributor, you know, a 
distributor of gas from all kinds of sources? 


      I understand where you are getting with this, but I don't 
think... since I have seen what's happening in Vermont, New Hampshire, 
and Maine.  I mean we have all travelled, you know, since our 
childhood in these three (3) states.  Everybody wants to go to the 
beach.  They have always said that there is more trees in Maine, and 
there is more trees in Vermont than anyplace in the world.  There is 
more lobster in Maine than anyplace in the world.  Look, there are 
three (3) plants in the north of New Hampshire.  We are going to go 
miles and miles in Quebec to supply them, whereas all they have to do 
is do a lateral line of ten (10) miles more.  I mean I understand 
these are markets, but it is not done yet.  

      So, why don't we look at what can happen between here and 
Coaticook?  I mean the job is not that enormous for Coaticook.  
Yesterday, I believe, we were told in Coaticook that they don't need 
it in East Hereford.  When you look at Coaticook, the municipal 
officials or the MRC is doing everything to try to expand their 
industrial park and so on.  The industries are not there.  They are 
not there yet.  

      So, for this particular line, I don't see it.  I mean somebody 
told me the other day: Why do you want to plug a route for gas and go 
through Quebec gardens? 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      Well, the market we are talking about, the New England market, 
we are talking basically about Massachusetts.  Boston is an 
agglomeration of about four (4) million people.  That's enormous, but, 
more specifically, coming back to page 4 of your brief, you say, in 
the United States, the three (3) potential clients that they have 
there.  Do you have the companies in mind? 


      Well, Androscoggin Co-Generation, Waussau, and you have the 
other one there. Semi Corporation, I believe it is called.  They 
haven't even made any request for the transfer or for the conversion.  
The two (2) others have already started.  I learned from personal 
communication that they have already started.  They are talking about 
construction end of 1999, perhaps 2000.  If you were in Colbrook a few 
weeks ago, they told - you were there.  They said they didn't see any 
answers for the end of 1999.  

      So, we are all in a big hurry on this side to go to the end of 
the line for 1998, where the potential market for this line between 
Lachenaie and East Hereford, the potential is not really there.  Now, 
if I understand, it is that if we have the industries, if we had 
industries on both sides of the line, then maybe we would be talking 
about something else. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      Let's try to understand ourselves here, Mr. Cloutier.  You talk 
about only three (3) potential clients between the Canadian border and 
the Maine market, i.e. - well, look, there are nevertheless clients 
for ninety-four percent (94%) of the gas that would transit through 
the pipeline which has already been sold.  Now, when I talked earlier 
on about the market, which you seemed to agree, i.e. that of New 
England, we are talking about intermediate clients and not the only 
clients for that pipeline. 


      Well, I'm just trying to make a difference between the New 
England market and what this line is going to bring.  Earlier on one 
of the slides I showed you, it is not even ten (10) miles in length, 
the lateral line that they need to take to go to Waussau.  And on the 
other slide that I showed you, I showed you the overall system, gas 
system, that would exist in Maine.  Now, would they be forced to go 
down instead of going up?  I mean they are going to wind up getting 
there one way or the other.  We agree on this, okay. 


      Mr. Cloutier. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      Good evening, Mr. Cloutier. 


      Good evening, Mr. Cloutier. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      That's a pretty good family we have got going here.  I just want 
to clarify something with respect to the quotes that you brought, that 
you read regarding my comments.  It wasn't that exactly.  It wasn't - 
well, when in the second paragraph - I'm just going to read the 
sentence.  You said: 

      "This is what led us to understand the reaction of the Cloutier 
Commission on the evening of the 7th, when he said that the 
identification of sensitive areas was slim". 

      When you say slim, I was referring here of the mitigative 
measures that the promoter specified in his report with respect to the 
sensitive areas. 


      But after that you said that you proposed to make appendix 9 a 
little bit more useful. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      Absolutely, I confirm that, yes. 


      Well, that's the context in which I raise this.  It is a fact 
that when you brought this up with the promoter, I'm not going into 
the details of what you were thinking or what you wanted to think, but 
you were not happy.  You didn't seem happy to hear the answer that 
they gave.  

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      It will be interesting to read it again.  


      I spent a few hours just reading this portion.  I have trouble 
with this, when they say in a directive that something has to be done, 
and it is not done. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      Okay, thank you, I just wanted to clarify that point.  The other 
point in your recommendations, you refer to the fact that this 
offshore project, the Tatham project, is of less impact.  Now, that's 
a valid judgement.  I mean it is a call that you have made when you 
say it is the least impact.  It is really binding. 


      Well, I know it is binding.  I'm going to explain myself here.  
I see where you are getting.  If you are going on the ground, there is 
a lot more impact than if the pipeline is under water.  Now, there is 
a lot of environmentalists and various groups that are going to say:  
No, no, no, no, we can't go through Georges Bank.  You can't do this; 
you can't do that, but you know as well as I do that metal rusts only 
when it is - if you put it under water, it doesn't rust.  

      And if you look at the distance, it is minimal compared with 
going from Ile des Sables to Quebec City to Montreal and then back to 
East Hereford, going through all the way to Portland, whereas if you 
do it directly through New Hampshire, first of all, the costs, 
everybody would look at these whether they like it not.  

      Now, secondly, in terms of the impact on the land, it is very 
few.  It is very little. I mean there is what, four hundred (400) 
something  owners between Lachenaie and here.  We are not going to 
have four hundred (400) owners in that case, land owners. That's why I 
said it is of the least impact. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      I understand, but I think right now it is a bit premature to say 
that that line is of least impact, since we don't know the ecosystems 
that would be affected, and considering your comments to the effect 
that the impact study, the promoter's impact study, in your opinion, 
is not complete. 


      Okay, that's fine. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      Good, thank you. 


      I would like to come back to a point you raised, Mr. Cloutier.  
You said that if the Commission recommends to the Minister to approve 
the project, the promoter should apply article 22 of the Environmental 
Quality Act throughout the length of the line.  


      Well, I don't have it in front of me, the Act, but anyway if I 
remember correctly, you need a certificate.  I believe it is paragraph 
2 of article 22.  You need a certificate for everything called 
wetlands:  constant, intermittent flow, waterways, rivers, brooks, and 
so on.  We know that, from Stukely, there is going to be a lot more 
than what they think. The inventory has not been done yet, but we 
might as well ask them to do it right now. 


      So, you just wanted to point that out, okay, good; okay, thank 
you very much for your presentation.  

      I now call on the representatives of the Memphremagog MRC, Mr. 
Roger Nicolet and Mr. Pierre Riverin.  Good evening, gentlemen. 


      Mr. President, Mr. Commissioners, I thank you very much on my 
behalf and on the behalf of my colleagues at the MRC for giving us the 
opportunity to summarize our brief here tonight, our brief regarding 
the TQM project.  My name is Pierre Riverin, (inaudible) of the MRC 
and mayor of Stukely.  I'll be assisted in our presentation by Mr. 
Nicolet, who is a member of the Development Committee of the MRC, and 
who is mandated to follow up on this project, and he is also mayor of 

      As you saw in the preamble and conclusion of the brief we 
tabled, the MRC unanimously objects to this project from TQM.  Maybe 
this objection is a bit late in the eyes of some, but we did this 
after thinking it through and after trying to find an acceptable 
alternative for all the parties involved.  Unfortunately, the process 
is out of our control, and the absence of consultation with the 
regional authorities responsible for the development of the territory 
before the approval process started did not allow them to take into 
account the objections that we are raising today.  

      The answers given to the questions submitted by the MRC to TQM 
last June were insufficient to change the MRC's position.  In 
addition, we have seen that different types of information of interest 
to the municipality and the MRC with respect to the risks of safety, 
the compensation, the land wealth, or construction techniques should 
have explained by the promoter well before the present hearings.  At 
no point, did the MRC receive a copy of the detailed project as 
submitted to the different ministries and to the office of the 
hearings, which should have helped us better understand the project. 

      Why are we opposed to the project?  First of all, choice of 
study zone, our region is different from the neighbouring areas 
because of the physical geographical characteristics that attracted 
humans and determined their choices, and these characteristics are 
behind the exceptional quality of life that attracts many visitors and 
residents every years.  These characteristics constitute a significant 
obstacle that is in contrast to the rest of the territory in the area 
submitted by the promoter.  It is a constraint for the promoter, but, 
over the past century, it has been a source of growth for the entire 

      The substantial reduction of the study zone in an uneven area 
like Memphremagog forces the promoter to use a valley to go through 
this zone as previous communication and energy projects did.  Yet, 
they are submitted to a different legislative framework than the one 
we have today.  

      We are convinced that an examination of a larger study zone in 
our region would have brought to light less impact alternatives than 
the proposal we have.  The promoter confirms in his documents that the 
choice of line in our region was done based on the location of the 
current pipeline of Gaz Metropolitain.  

      The promoter reminded us that the selection criteria for the 
location of a pipeline that they use referred to those used in 1983 by 
Gaz Metropolitain, which could not have taken into consideration the 
choice of development of the region, because at that time no tool 
regarding these objects existed. 

      In addition, in light of the criteria proposed for the location 
of a pipeline in terms of the environment, we believe that a lot of 
them are not respected in the Magog/Orford area, and that territorial 
planning resulting from a veritable process of consultation should 
have had a priority in such a project.  

      We believe that the definition of a new study zone either more 
to the north or more to the south, even though it involves economic 
constraints for the promoter, should have brought to light 
alternatives that have less impact on the environment and on the 
outlooks put forward by the rest of our community. 

      Overall, we don't think that the proposal, the line proposed, is 
of the least impact, considering the corridor selected for study. 

      The second point, a second reason why we oppose this project, 
the context of an intervention of the GMI project of 1983, the region 
has only one experience with a gas line, and that is Gaz Metro 
pipeline which crossed the MRC from east to west in 1983 and supplied 
the area with natural gas.  This project is quoted by the promoter as 
support. It cannot be used as a reference to defend this TQM project, 
first of all, because of its different characteristics, and because 
the region did not have at the time any development proposals. 

      In addition, at the time, local authorities, if they had been 
advised that the location of this pipeline would be used later on as 
an argument for the addition of other pipeline projects, the project 
would not have been approved by the region without more extensive 
studies and without the adoption of specific provisions that would 
have allowed for the addition of additional pipelines within the same 
right of way developed accordingly. 

      It is, therefore, wrong to claim that the TQM project can be 
compared to that of GMI and can be based on the same location 
criteria.  The region now has planning tools devoted to the 
Magog/Orford area to the development of recreation and tourism, and 
that should be taken into account by the promoter of the project under 
examination today. 

      Thirdly, our project deals with the touristic vocation of the 
Magog/Orford area, and that's the third point of our objection.  This 
region, which covers over two hundred (200) square kilometres of 
territory, constitutes the only year-around tourist area of this size 
in Quebec.  We have always had a strong power of attraction for people 
around the neighbouring areas, particularly Montreal. 

      Now, the proposal that we see today that is going through the 
territory of the MRC, in spite of the continuity of what has been seen 
in different studies carried out on the development of this area, 
three (3) studies had an impact on our choice of development.  And the 
studies outlined in our project show the inconsistency between the 
project, the pipeline project, and the tourist vocation of our area. 

      Let's just remind you of the following points.  The Sorès study 
of 1973, which recognized a tourist station in the region, this study 
ordered by the Ministry of Tourism, Hunting and Fishing at the time 
covered a territory that is much larger, six thousand five hundred 
(6,500) kilometres.  It clearly identified the natural characteristics 
of the region that should support the tourism supply.  And, 
incidentally, this area has been selected for the passage of the 
pipeline as a zone that has - this particular zone has the highest 
recreation and tourism potential throughout the six thousand five 
hundred (6,500) kilometres. 

      The Urbanitek-Sotar study of 1984 ordered by the MRC for the 
tourism industry in the Magog/Orford, this study was done in 
conformity with the Sorès report and confirmed the development 
potential of the centre and the importance of planning it in detail.  
The strategy proposed was based respecting the environment, and the 
strategies selected in the study identified the elements of the 
tourist industry that we should take into account in developing the 
station, i.e. the quality of the natural resources, the quality of the 
landscape, the accessibility of the territory, the tourist tradition. 

      The intermunicipal plan for Magog/Orford of Sotar RCMP in 1989, 
the municipalities between Mount Orford and Lake Megantic with the MRC 
and certain provincial ministries ordered this study to look at the 
blueprint selected for this project to maximize the development of the 
territory and maximize the development of the three (3) 

      And this marketing strategy developed by the RCMP focuses on 
continuity and consistency in the planning exercise, consistency 
between the objectives, the development scenarios, the projects and 
investments, the trademarks, the measures taken by municipal 
governments, and the commitments it would take, continuity that you 
could see in the planning process, regulations that support the 
development, marketing, and the management of services and existing 

      In the context of these three (3) studies, in light of these 
three (3) studies, we cannot pretend or claim that a right of way of 
twenty-three (23) metres is only accessory, and that it doesn't have 
any impact; it has a limited impact on our land heritage.  

      I would like to hand things over to Mr. Nicolet to continue the 
rest of my presentation. 


      Thank you, the fourth point of opposition has to do with the 
development plan. Whether it is through chance or error, the 
orientation or the development of the MRC does not appear in the 
documents presented by the promoter.  It is thus easier to understand 
why the tourist future of the region was not taken into account 

      We believe that the pipeline project submitted is not in line 
with the development of the MRC or the study.  Based on the study 
carried out in the region and in terms of identifying elements of 
particular interest, and taking into account the expectations of the 
community and the occupants of the territory, the orientations and 
objectives were defined.  They had to do with a definition of space 
that rejects any energy transmission project that is not in line with 
the development of the tourist area. 

      Let's remind you of some of the objectives in the creation of a 
recreation and tourist area in the Memphremagog area:  expanding all 
the sectors available for vacationing; protection and conservation of 
the natural environment and the quality of life. These orientations 
and objectives should be achieved.  

      The MRC Memphremagog has used the power in 1987, used the power 
granted to it by the Territory Development Act.  In addition, we are 
revising the development outline as we speak.  The last projects have 
been submitted.  And the municipality or the MRC and the citizens have 
participated in this process, and have all confirmed the tourist 
vocation of this region.  And the natural environment or cultural 
environment of the MRC is even more recognized as the centrepiece of 
our regional development. 

      The fifth element has to do with the negative economic 
consequences of the project.  Apart from the cultural impact on the 
vocation of this area, the rest of the geography and everything else 
will be affected.  The resort potential of this area would be affected 
by this project.  

      And the fact that this is a tourist area has helped increase the 
value of the properties in this area.  Vacationers represent thirty-
seven percent (37%) of our population, and it is increasing, and this 
affects the land wealth of the area.  So, it therefore has to do - it 
is part of the - one of the reasons why the value of our properties 
have always been going up, and they were assessed at over two point 
five (2.5) billion dollars in 1987, and this sector of economic 
activity is well recognized.  

      And the development outline does not include - it does not plan 
for any gas pipeline going through our territory.  We believe that the 
line proposed by the promoter cannot be accepted because of the risk 
factors and the vocation of the area, and this would force us to 
downgrade our development potential for a corridor, which is much more 
significant than the one proposed by the pipeline right of way.  It 
seems evident that the residential development perspectives for 
vacationers in a region such as Stukely and others that are south 
would be diminished. 

      The sixth and final point of our opposition is the risk factors 
and the impact of (inaudible) on peripheral development.  The Urban 
Development Act encourages MRC's to establish laws preventing them 
from accepting any project going through their territory that would 
have a negative impact on their development.  

      We did not have enough information to allow us to analyze all 
its impact, but considering all the information obtained during 
different sessions of this Commission, the arrival of such a project 
would force the MRC to create a buffer zone within which the planning 
of new residential development would be revised, and the construction 
of new residences or any other type of housing would be limited.  

      The question raised is:  What distance should we take in terms 
of - as a threshold for this restriction?  We saw, in a graph 
presenting the level of risks applicable to different segments of this 
project, that the risks of nine (9) deaths per million per year is 
between zero (0) and fifty-nine (59) metres of the pipeline.  It 
doesn't propose any controlled distance for the level of risks not to 
reach ten (10) deaths per million per year.  

      We believe that nine (9) deaths per million per year is closer 
to ten (10) deaths per million than one (1) death per million.  And 
based on this, we should at least plan for restrictions, for example, 
such as those from the Canadian Major Accidents Commission, that of in 
a corridor of a hundred and fifty-nine (159) metres from either side 
of the pipeline. 

      In addition, the same table, taking into account the 
recommendations of CCRCM, we should discourage residential development 
of high density, any commercial accommodations or other institutions 
in a corridor of three hundred and fifty (350) metres each side of 
this pipeline.  That means that we are going to have to look at the 
delimitation of the Eastman urban perimeter and look at the whole 
sector situated after the 115 exit of the Highway 10. 

      It has been mentioned that, with all this information, the MRC 
has to recognize the extraordinary constraints that the construction 
of this pipeline is going to pose, and we will see, with the 
cooperation of the Ministry of Public Security, how we can evaluate 
the risk corridor and perhaps review the possibilities of development 
within this corridor. 

      We have just listed the six (6) main reasons for which we are 
opposed.  The deficit of negative impacts over the positive ones 
completes the presentation of the MRC and its view.  To summarize, if 
you let me, the positive impacts are the advantages of this project 
which have been put forth by the promoters, which is limited to the 
following: the use of certain commercial services during the 
construction period; the fact that the construction sector and the 
subcontractors might well be hired by the general contractor. 

      On the other side, the negative impacts are that it is going to 
tarnish the image of the MRC and our tourist image.  It means that we 
are going to have to revise our tourist mission; permanent wounding 
and scar on the landscape, which is the cornerstone of our 
development; the destabilization of the forest in the sensitive areas; 
the loss of potential as a vacation tourist area; and reduction in the 
natural richness, wealth, of the area. 

      We don't oppose the whole idea of a pipeline with a double 
vision, which is in order to serve the Quebec population and export 
natural gas to the United States. However, it must not be done to the 
detriment of the development of the region.  The short-term economic 
impact offered to the region seems to us to be marginal in terms of 
the middle-term and long-term consequences of the corridor which has 
been chosen up to date.  

      In such a case, we have to look for other avenues which have the 
least impact, even if this forces the promoter to have to go around 
and figure out how to surmount important obstacles.  


      Thank you very much for your presentation, before forgetting, 
would it be possible to ask you to file your summary?  We have your 
complete brief, but it would be useful for us to have the summary. 


      No problem. 


      Your brief is important for us, because it is a special project 
which has been planned.  The MRC is in charge of the planning and the 
development of a region, and that's why your point of view is 
extremely precious for us, because you represent the public 
authorities who are in charge of planning and developing this 
territory within the MRC.  

      First of all, I would like to mention that two (2) preliminary 
consultations should have taken place.  In your mind, how should this 
preliminary consultation have taken place in order that it be a 
satisfactory operation, and that it, in fact, meets your expectations 
in this area? 


      Well, how could it have taken place?  We have the impression 
that today we are almost at the ultimate stage, and it is only here 
that we can air our objections.  I think we should have put the horse 
- we have proceeded backward.  Our expert in development planning, we 
are going to refer to Miss Gilbert, who is our expert.  Miss Gilbert 
talked to us about certain discussions and communications between the 
MRC and the promoter and the examination of a route, a possible 
alternative route.  Should I introduce you? 


      Must I understand that the communication between the promoter 
and the MRC are presently inexistent or have broken down in some way? 


      I could perhaps read an extract of a text that was prepared, 
which eventually is going to be filed more formally.  It is a text 
coming from the company. 

      "A first meeting with the representative of the MRC Memphremagog 
took place at the end of September, 1996.  The goal of the meeting was 
to present the potential corridor and to get information on the 
compatibility of this corridor with particular elements in the 

      After a study of the relevant documents, the promoter, in 1997, 
filed plans, photos, (inaudible), which indicated that the corridor 
that would be the best one and all the variations, and this had been 
submitted to the MRC in order to get our opinion on the project of the 
TQM pipeline.  

      The MRC council, after having the project evaluated by the 
planning committee, had decided not to support the route suggested by 
the promoter.  And the main reasons for this were problems in drinking 
water supply, the potential use of the Highway 55 right of way, and 
the fact that the impact zones which have been identified had not yet 
been thoroughly canvassed.  

      The promoter representatives met the MRC in order to respond to 
the concerns that we had raised.  And in February, 1997, at the end of 
this meeting, the parties agreed that the representatives of the MRC 
and the promoter should meet again in order to discuss various 
alternative routes on the territory. 

      At the end of April and at the beginning of May, meetings took 
place between the MRC representatives in order to discuss other 
alternatives, but all this, I think, illustrates, and it is in the 
words of the promoter itself, is that the decision was already taken 
before the discussions or the exchanges ever took place. 


      Should I understand that since the end of the first part of the 
hearings, there haven't been any further communications between the 
MRC and the promoter?  Okay, thank you very much, you have mentioned 
in your brief a very large number of problems and disadvantages, and 
you have reminded us several times the tourist characteristics of the 
region, mentioning its attractions, its natural beauty, and you have 
used a lot of superlative terms.  

      If we look at the fact that a pipeline already exists, which 
goes alongside Highway 10 and which, in some part, has been converted 
into a cycling - a bicycle path, considering the principles of 
sustainable development, the different forms and the techniques that 
one can use in terms of converting landscapes, given all the 
techniques and expertise that we now have available, wouldn't there be 
a certain compatibility between the recreation/tourist mission of the 
region and such an infrastructure being built here?  

      In other words, is your position absolutely categorically one of 
refusal of a pipeline, or if there was a different approach, a 
different vision, an approach concerned with sustainable development, 
and if techniques were used in order to integrate this construction as 
best as possible with the landscape, do you think there is any 
possibility that you could find the construction of a pipeline on the 


      I know that there was a meeting between the people from Gaz 
Metropolitain and TQM with our planner, and there were mitigation 
measures which were envisaged by the promoter.  And in terms of the 
planning committee and the discussions that we had with the council of 
mayors, these mitigation measures were not sufficient in our eyes.  
You have to understand as well that there are a lot of places where it 
is clear that if this pipeline could go in the same trench as the 
other one already is, but at a lot of places, because the distances 
that you have to keep in terms of the old pipeline, that it is 
difficult to do so. 

      So, we are already aware how the existing pipeline has scarred 
the landscape in our region, and we think a scar, which will be 
twenty-three (23) metres wide, is something that goes totally against 
everything that we have been working for for several years.  Perhaps 
some of the adjectives I used were superlatives... 


      Oh, and very rightfully so, very rightfully so. 


      In fact, the whole exercise which we went through, it was late, 
but we did it this spring, as a goal, proposed to the promoters 
certain numbers of mitigation measures, and we have never had any 
response, any complete response, complete positive and favourable 
response to all these requests.  We had a few suggestions which went 
in the general direction that you have indicated, Mr. Chairman, but 
these were certainly not an overall complete solution to the problems 
that we had presented to the representatives of the company. 


      And what were the mitigation measures that were put forward 
which, in certain cases, could respond to certain questions we had, 
but there were other situations in other municipalities where people 
simply objected absolutely to the route.  So, there were all kinds of 
things which are behind our position. 


      If I understand properly, the brief that you presented tonight 
has been approved by the council of mayors of the MRC.  Does this mean 
that each member of a municipality has voted a resolution along these 


      No, we didn't ask each one of the municipalities to vote a 
resolution along these lines, but you have to understand that each one 
of the twenty (20) mayors who represents each one of the 
municipalities, when they vote, they vote on behalf of their 
municipality.  They represent their municipality, but we haven't asked 
each one of the municipalities, because neither we on the planning 
committee or we on the mayors' council felt that we had to go through 
such a process or take such a step.  It was unanimous within the 
mayors' council.  


      So, according to the MRC, such a project would go against the 
MRC's plan, okay, thank you. 

      Mr. Paré. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      I would like to come back to a point in particular that Mr. 
Nicolet raised near the end of his presentation, when he said that the 
information which came out of these sessions would probably lead the 
MRC to review the criterion standards for risk evaluation in order to 
ensure the general security of the population.  In your brief, you 
point out that the Memphremagog MRC, and I'm citing this on page 15 
now, "paid particular attention to the territorial elements which were 
underlying our picturesque touristic mission".  In other words, you 
went beyond the usual dezoning regulations in order to try to look at 
different ways of intervening in this community.  
      I would like you to tell us a little bit more, for instance, 
what are these provisions. Are they regulations or zoning bylaws, or 
are they directives or things like in terms of doing tests on the 
lignosae matter?  Are there other aspects which you have looked at, 
for instance, concerning the resources in the immediate community or 
the protection of landscape? 


      The Memphremagog MRC, and in our brief we mention this, we have 
prepared a central plan for the Orford/Magog touristic plan, which is 
much more detailed than something which is usually part of a central 
plan.  This is because we have to face up to an intermunicipal problem 
in terms of managing the territory and a collective asset.  

      And, therefore, we pushed studies concerning the economic 
development potential on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the 
implications of this planning or development in order to come up with 
a whole series of regulations which is much more detailed and goes 
much further than what a normal urban plan would have, because it 
allowed us to integrate a whole series of special requirements for 
this Magog/Orford tourist area, which is going to go from Mount Orford 
to Eastman to Stukely, which covers part of Austin and the two (2) 
Magog's without neglecting the rest of the territory, of course. 

      Notably, what we have alluded to is the control of cutting other 
than in clearings in order to preserve what we call the natural 
landscapes.  We have edicted a whole series of requirements in terms 
of the percentage of cut that you are limited or the kind of cutting 
that one is limited to in those areas that we think are particularly 
at risk or sensitive, that is to say extremely important from an 
environmental or aesthetic point of view, and also absolutely key from 
an environmental point of view in the strict sense of the term, 
erosion, potential import on the water resource.  We have gone much 
further than what normally one does in that context. 

      As a consequence of this, we are limiting or delimiting, for 
instance, the operation of private wooded areas, for instance, on a 
farm for production purposes. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      It is certain you have put your finger on a fundamental subject, 
which is that of the fact that any regulation obviously imposes 


      That's something we have to face up to on a daily basis, and 
what we have to try to do is to hear about the interests of the two 
(2) groups, which have diverted interests. And we tried to come up 
with a solution to reconcile both.  In the case of the restrictions in 
wood-cutting, what we have edicted after consultation with the unions, 
with all the producers, we have hired forest engineers who have 
assured us that what the MRC was doing was not arbitrary nor 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      Okay, thank you, a last question at least from me, you evoked 
two (2) possibilities for alternative corridors:  one which we have 
already heard about at length, which would be to go through Highwater 
in order to get to the Vermont, and the other which would go around, 
could go around the whole Orford/Magog sector by going around to the 
north, on the north side.  You said we are close to the potential 
markets, and this is less problematic for the promoter.  Have you done 
any analysis of this particular sector, or is this simply an 
invitation to look at this possibility and see what happens? 


      It is more an invitation to look at this possibility.  We 
haven't, on our side, discussed this issue with the MRC.  What we are 
talking about is that the pipeline could go around the other side of 
Mount Orford and that would in fact end up avoiding completely MRC or 
a large part of... We don't have the resources... 


      What we could testify about was the impact that it would have on 
our area, what we know about, but we are certainly not in a position 
to do that kind of study of the impact it could have on another area. 


      Mr. Cloutier. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      Good evening, gentlemen, just a specification, you mentioned a 
while ago in terms of the constraints and the standards that the MRC 
intends to establish, is this a commitment of the MRC to have a 
specific zonage for infrastructures which are considered to be risk 


      The experience that we have had over the last few months has 
caused us to wake up, to be perfectly frank with you.  The risk factor 
associated with a pipeline is something that we had never measured.  
We never really got a handle on the scope of this kind of risk or the 
size of this risk.  

      What we are saying to you very humbly today is that everything 
that we have learned concerning the potential impact of a new pipeline 
means that, with the necessary changes, this should as well be subject 
for (inaudible) the equipment which is already there, and we can 
remind people that, very shortly, we are going to have to review our 
planification, given what we are now starting to measure and to 
realize more clearly. 


      We are presently in a period of reviewing our plan, our 
potential plan.  And at the beginning, we reacted very slowly, and we 
say this, but the more we go along, the more questions are being 
asked, and more information comes to light, and it means that we 
definitively ask more and more questions.  And there are going to be 
specific standards that are going to have to be adopted about this.  

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      There are equipments or infrastructures which are subjects of 
risk.  And yesterday evening, in a brief that was presented to us by a 
resident from Ste-Catherine de Hatley, they pointed out to us that the 
hydrogen plant very close to Highway 55 is part of the sector where 
the pipeline is going to go through.  So, it becomes there very 
nephralgic, a real flash point.  As well, there is existing pipeline 
belonging to Gaz Metropolitain. 

      My question is:  Does the municipality or the municipalities 
affected have an emergency plan presently in terms of the risk-
creating infrastructures?  And if so, I would like you to talk to us 
about it in terms of what resources, both human and technical 
resources, are allocated that is required by these plans. 


      To the best of my knowledge, the only municipalities which might 
have something organized would be the City of Magog.  The Magog County 
has a bigger team of volunteer firemen than the other municipalities, 
but in all the other municipalities what we have in terms of... are 
simply volunteer firemen, if ever such a thing happened.  People are 
presently taking steps within various municipalities to adopt 
emergency plans, but to say today specifically where most of the 
municipalities are at in terms of that project, perhaps Miss Gilbert 
could speak to that. 


      I just have some additional information I would like to add.  I 
don't want to impose my point of view.  I would like to point out that 
the idea of the (inaudible) constraints is a power which is new in 
terms of the planning and development law.  So, even if we wanted to, 
the idea was not that the MRC was to take the responsibility for this 
kind of constraint. 

      Secondly, we have been informed of the existence of this new 
power, and the Commission was asked to read a document produced by the 
Ministry of Mr. Lefebvre concerning the determination of risks in 
(inaudible) constraints.  The MRC realize that there is very little 
data which would help us to evaluate this risk.  We are not qualified. 
We don't necessarily have the means, the resources, to proceed with an 
evaluation of all these risks. 

      So, in the case of gas, Mr. (inaudible) mentioned this, the 
information which has been disclosed by these hearings is that we have 
had consistently clear information that, in terms of our resources, we 
have had to re-evaluate the whole issue of gas. 

      As for the other risks, the mayors' council last winter was 
honoured with an inventory and an evaluation of the emergency plans of 
the municipalities within the MRC territory and the relevance of 
proceeding with an inventory of the environment at risk. The MRC 
adopted an environment plan in 1995, and one of the priorities of this 
plan was to adopt emergency plans both at the local level and at the 
industrial level.  

      The inventory allowed us to realize that several municipalities 
don't have any emergency plan at this very moment or when we carried 
out the evaluation.  Certain municipalities have emergency plans which 
needed to be updated, and certain municipalities had emergency plans 
which were adequate and up to date. 

      So, with this information at hand, the MRC proposed for the 
benefit of the rural municipalities in particular that we proceed with 
an evaluation of the risk elements, which should be taken into account 
in an emergency plan. And the MRC is going, after this fall or this 
winter, make recommendations to the municipalities which may well be 
in a risk situation, and which should therefore be included in an 
emergency plan. 

      So, it is a question perhaps of time delays or harmonizing the 
stages, but, in the case of the MRC, there has been an education job 
done.  And we realize that, particularly in the rural areas, there is 
very poor knowledge about which sectors are at risk, what are the risk 
elements.  And we know that, in terms of gas, we think that it is 
important to have an evaluation, an official evaluation, done 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      This means that presently you already have a pipeline on your 
territory.  Is there some cooperation between Metropolitan Gas and the 
municipality or the municipalities which are involved for the 
management of a crisis or any other kind of problem situation? 


      This cooperation has to be established.  It doesn't exist at the 
present time.  


      Well, listen,  we knew the guy, people from Gaz Metropolitain 
who built the pipeline in 1983, and they are going to be back here in 
1996.  If you want an answer, that is the answer, hey.  We know those 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      I would just like to conclude with one last question.  Do you 
have recommendations to make to the Commission concerning the elements 
that we should consider in terms of working out an emergency plan, 
taking into account the construction of a pipeline in terms of working 
out such a development plan? 


      I'm going to ask Miss Gilbert.  I think that this whole notion 
of constraints within a certain zone has to be examined much more 
deeply.  We are rather vague in terms of the whole problems of 
building safety.  You know, 10- 6 is a magic figure that we are trying 
to get to.  And it seems to me that we are now creating a risk zone, 
which is even going to be an even greater risk with the kind of 
equipment we are talking about inherent in this context.  

      We are going to have to work with the Minister of Public 
Security to define in a much more specific way the parameters that 
must be laid down and to analyze much more in depth the consequences 
of the existing equipment without talking about the equipment that may 
well be brought in, because the operating conditions, the dimension of 
the pipeline, all of this is very different.  So, the construction 
period, the materials to be used, what it is going to be covered with, 
all the technical parameters are totally different.  So, at some 
point, someone is going to have to sit down and help us to sort it all 

      And you know very well that our financial resources are fairly 
limited.  We don't have unlimited budgets.  Now to have to go and 
consult experts, you know very well that there are not really all that 
many experts, hey.  So, we are going to have to involve the 
government.  The government is going to have to get more involved than 
simply doing what the MEF has done so far. 


      You know that, here in this region, you have several rural 
municipalities, where there are one (1) or two (2) in the Eastern 
Townships, there is only three (3) civil servants or employees.  So, 
it is very, very elementary needs of the municipalities only that can 
be met.  And where it is the mayor, the councillors, you know, you 
understand they are not full-time employees.  So, we have the same 
standards as any city in terms of what they ask us for.  So, we do 
what we can do.  We do our possible, but we are just starting to 
educate people all about the importance of emergency measures. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      What you have said here confirms what has been said to us by the 
residents of several other municipalities.  I said  it was going to be 
my last question, but, in fact, I'm going to now ask yet another last 
question.  It is not really a question, but it is much more a 

      The project in question has led the Commission to look at other 
projects which have been carried out in Canada, also in the U.S., to 
see how these things could be executed, and we have learned that there 
are different planning processes and different work methodologies used 
by the various companies in the construction of pipelines. 

      And I'm now referring to the drafting of the Memphremagog 
development plan, where you came up with a spacial definition which 
reflects the priority which you people are giving to 
recreation/tourism mission.  In order to meet this mission, you have 
to live up to the criteria.  You have put forward analyses, and you 
have given great importance to each one of these criteria. 

      In a parallel way, there are projects in Canada or in the U.S. 
in terms of pipeline construction, which use the methodology which 
reflects the drafting of the development plan.  That is to say that 
they have working groups, which carry out consultations of the 
population.  And these working groups work with the company itself and 
its experts on a technical level, as well as on an environmental level 
or in engineering.  There are regional organizations, for example, the 
MRC's and the municipalities and the various ministries.  And this 
group defines the criteria, and the sensitive zones, and the 
opportunity zone to finally come up with a kind of master plan, which 
allows us to move the weights around. 

      The reason why I'm talking about that is that a corridor, which 
is as big as this, is a complex corridor from an environmental point 
of view, from an economic point of view, from a social point of view.  
And it is a major challenge as to how we are going to name this little 
baby.  At this time, we are often referring to geomantic techniques as 
we call this, the use of references of data, which refer to spacial.  
In other words, it is a work tool, which allows us to use all kinds of 

      In your opinion, an approach where we would use spacial 
reference data and techniques combined with a group of people from the 
industry and from this community in order to define the localization 
criteria, which would allow us, first of all, to define a study zone, 
first of all, which could reflect a better - give us a better idea of 
what people would like to see, and, secondly, allow for much more 
specific localization which would reflect the needs of the population. 


      I don't think the MRC - I don't know if we could have done a 
consultation in another way to get more people involved.  I don't 
think we can answer that question. 


      I think what you are pointing out is the way of going about this 
kind of thing in the future, and we are seeing in this region that 
politicians overreact, and Mr. Riverin said it a minute ago.  
Politicians are reacting to their constituents in part, but there is 
an outcry on the part of the population.  They are trying to get 
themselves heard through all kinds of means before you. 

      And I think, quite apart from the financial individual 
interests, there is a collective concern with respect to the quality 
of the environment, and this finds expression in the various 
testimonies that you will hear today and tomorrow. 

      Now, under such circumstances, why not anticipate the problems 
and develop scenarios in concert with people who do not want to have 
equipment loaded on them, you know, arbitrarily, or at least they 
think it is arbitrary. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      Thank you very much. 


      One last question along the lines of what Mr. Cloutier just 
asked you, you pass a very severe judgement with respect to the 
selection criteria that were used.  You said that there were criteria 
from the 1980's that are not adapted to the reality of today.  And in 
the development choices that the MRC has to make, you even indicated 
that this approach sort of wipes out the tourist and recreational 
potential of here.  

      You are saying that these criteria from the 1980's, although 
they are unadapted, have still not been respected in this process.  I 
believe it is on page 3 on your brief.  That sort of ties in a bit 
with Mr. Cloutier's question. 

      Now, at the end of the day, the approach selected did not allow 
the concerns or priorities of your MRC with respect to the 
recreational and touristic vocation of your MRC to be taken into 
account or to be given sufficient weighting to influence the decisions 
or the options with respect to the lines.  What types of criteria did 
you think met those needs? 


      What we point out in our brief is that, in previous meetings 
with the MRC and during the hearings, I imagine, the promoter pointed 
out that one of the primary criteria selected was the location of - 
was the existing right of way.  And in the case of Memphremagog, what 
is a part of Magog/Orford portion, one of the primary objectives of 
the promoter was to install their pipeline parallel to the existing 
pipeline.  Now, that had an influence on other criteria that may have 
been valid from a social-economic environmental point of view. 

      What we are saying is that, notwithstanding this criteria, the 
review of other criteria that we could have seen in the documents 
provided as a complement, all the criteria, when we looked at them, 
could have provided sufficient grounds to change the study zones. 

      Now, each time that we had to discuss the location criteria and 
the possibility of looking at other study corridors which were 
proposed to the promoter, we mainly got economic considerations on the 
part of the promoter. 

      So, what we are saying is that our economic considerations with 
respect to the medium and long-term impacts of the project versus the 
immediate impacts in terms of economy for the promoter are, for us, 
different, and we think that, for these reasons, certain social-
economic criteria are much more important and should have been 
considered, should have had priority over the objective of following a 
corridor or the existing rights of way. 


      Okay, thank you very much for your testimony. 

      I now call on Métalurgie Magnola Incorporated represented by Mr. 
Denis Leclerc. 


      Mr. President, Commissioners, my name is Denis Leclerc.  I'm 
Corporate Affairs Director for Métalurgie Magnola.  I would like to 
tell you, first of all, that Mr. Michael Avedesian, who is the V.P. 
and Chief Executive Officer, would have liked to be here this evening.  
Unfortunately, he is outside the country. 

      My presentation will be quite brief, and I hope it will also 
help correct certain erroneous beliefs and clarify the current state 
of the Magnola project. 

      First of all, in a few words, Magnola proposes to construct and 
operate near GM Asbestos in Asbestos a complex for the production of 
magnesium and magnesium alloys with a nominal capacity of fifty-eight 
thousand (58,000) tons per year.  

      I would like to remind you of who our partners are.  There is 
Métalurgie Noranda, our main partner, fifty-two percent (52%); a 
Japanese company that manufactures automobile parts called Aisin; and 
SNC-Lavalin that everybody knows; and the Société Générale de 
Financement du Québec; the three (3) other partners, sixteen percent 

      Now, this magnesium plant is original in that it will operate 
and develop the mineral residues coming from the operation of 
asbestos, i.e. the famous mountains adjacent to asbestos mines.  These 
residues include about twenty-four percent (24%) magnesium. In this 
capacity, these mining residues that are called serpentine residues 
constitute one of the richest magnesium extracts in the world.  The 
Magnola plant would then be the first in the world to use mineral 
residues as a raw material. 

      This project represents an investment of about, of about I 
repeat, seven hundred (700) million dollars, which will create three 
hundred and fifty (350) to four hundred (400) jobs and several hundred 
indirect jobs.  

      I would like to remind you that we have an expansion phase 
planned for 2010 to double the capacity of the plant. 

      Now, I would like to remind you of the major steps or stages in 
the project.  Now, the decision to go ahead with the project, i.e. 
building the plant, will be taken between now and the end of 1997, as 
planned in our initial schedule.  And this decision would be based on 
the profitability of the project, following the obtaining of 
government authorizations in terms of the environment, as well as on 
the result of a testing of a pilot plant. 

      Our pilot plant, which was located in Valleyfield, it was 
commissioned in the end of 1996, and the tests have already been 
successfully completed and were completed in early July this year. 

      Now, with respect to environmental impact studies, we have 
tabled our environmental impact study with the Ministry of Environment 
and Wildlife.  We did this in February, 1997.  There we talk about the 
development of the project based on the environmental orientations.  
And, in short, the goal is to minimize the emissions and discharges at 
source to recover, recycle, and optimize at each stage of the project 
the inputs and outputs, ensure the safety not only of the public, but 
also of the workers, and ensure that the plant is incorporated both 
into its environment and into its community properly. 

      Now, the decision of the Board of Directors of Métalurgie 
Magnola is favourable. The construction of the plant, magnesium plant, 
would begin in the spring of 1998, and it will be commissioned in the 
year 2000.  

      I would like to point out here that we have to be very careful 
in interpreting what is said and, above all, of what is written in the 

      Now, the energy needs or requirements for Magnola, the procedure 
requires electricity and natural gas.  Electricity, we are talking 
about one hundred and twenty (120) megawatts; for natural gas, a 
hundred and thirteen (113) million cubic metres of natural gas per 
year.  This energy would be used for drying of (inaudible), production 
of granules, and the productions for our hydrogen site and for 
smelting cells.  You should also remember that these energy 
requirements would be doubled for the expansion phase for the plant. 

      Now, with respect to the supply of electricity, there is already 
a power corridor at less than one (1) kilometre from the plant.  So, 
we already have a line of two hundred and thirty (130) kv's available 
near the plant.  As for natural gas, unfortunately, the asbestos area 
is not served by the natural gas system right now.  Now that it should 
meet the needs of our future plant, Gaz Metropolitain has already 
plans to set up a conduit from Windsor. 

      Now, what is the link between Magnola and the project that we 
have this evening? Well, the project for the extension of the TQM 
system to PNGTS will offer a better distribution of natural gas in the 
Eastern Townships, and will also allow several other regions to take 
advantage of this energy for their commercial and industrial 

      In the case of the Magnola project, this could represent not 
only an adequate supply of natural gas to meet our needs, but also and 
above all increased reliability in terms of sourcing.  And this is 
absolutely essential and vital for ongoing operations, as is the case 
for the production of magnesium. 

      Now, this aspect of the supply of natural gas, as well as 
several other aspects, would be taken into consideration during the 
decision of our Board of Directors to build a magnesium plant in 
Asbestos.  And this eventually will place Quebec as a primary producer 
of magnesium in the world.  Thank you very much. 


      Well, thank you very much, Mr. Leclerc, for your presentation; 
if I understand correctly, the article from the newspaper Les 
Affaires, which was reported earlier on - I think you were here.  It 
was presented by Mr. Cloutier.  Now, based on what you have just said, 
the decision of going ahead with the project will be based on the 
profitability of the project.  Am I interpreting you correctly? 


      Absolutely, among other things, that's one of the criteria. 


      Now, for the benefit of the Commission, could you just explain 
to us - you are talking on page 2 of incorporating your project into 
the environment and the community properly.  Could you explain to us 
how you do this in terms of your relations to the community? 


      Well, first of all, about a year ago, we started an information 
and consultation program with the population.  Now, this consultation 
and information period was done concomitantly with our environmental 
impact study.  Every month, we organized an information meeting, which 
was open to the public month after month, to explain the results of 
our impact study, chapter after chapter.  In so doing, we had the 
opportunity to know people's concerns, take note of them, consider 
them in our impact study, so that we wind up with solutions or 
compromises that are acceptable to the public.  

      This information and consultation phase was completed in April.  
We did this, so that the Bureau d'audiences publiques could have the 
opportunity to start up their own information and consultation session 
in the beginning of June, and the BAPE's information and consultation 
session ended on July 31st. 


      So, you are talking about an evolutionary process.  You are 
talking about each stage of your project.  It was evolutionary, and, 
at each stage, you integrated the input from the community. 


      Absolutely, I like the word interact.  It was interactive.  
There were not just presentations, but discussions.  So, there were 
always several periods of questions and comments. 


      Now, coming back to the project to extend the pipeline to PNGTS, 
if I understand correctly, for your company and for the project that 
you are talking about, the Magnola project, the absence of such an 
extension of the pipeline would mean - would generate concerns with 
respect to the continuity and reliability, and that would be taken 
into account by the Board of Directors in its decision to go ahead 
with the project. 


      Well, the energy supply, whether we are talking electricity or 
natural gas, is a very important criterion for the project.  The 
energy supply over a long period and sufficiently to meet our 
expansion needs of our initial expansion to 2010, this aspect is vital 
and essential for the project. 


      Thank you very much. 

      Mr. Cloutier. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      Okay, good evening, just a few clarifications, the mineral 
residues that you plan to process, what is its life cycle? 


      Well, Mr. Cloutier, just take in Asbestos where we have a 
mountain of two hundred and fifty (250) million tons of minerals.  
Now, for this project, we have a purchase option for about half, a 
little less than half of this mountain, i.e. a hundred and ten (110) 
million tons.  Now, if you consider the level of production of the 
plant for the year 2000, we would have enough raw materials to produce 
for about three hundred (300) years.  So, it is not the raw material 
that - you know, we will have enough raw materials. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      Thank you very much; now, you also say that the construction of 
the magnesium plant would start in the spring of 1998 and will be 
commissioned in the year 2000.  Does this mean that your natural gas 
requirements, you won't have any before the year 2000? 


      That's a pretty good way to interpret it, I guess.  Well, that 
means we would probably need a little bit of natural gas at the very 
beginning or towards the end of the construction, but I don't have all 
the data.  But with respect to the production of magnesium, 
absolutely, at the beginning of the year 2000, we will start up the 
plant, and that is when we will have a significant requirement for 
natural gas. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      One last point, Gaz Metropolitain plans to set up a conduit 
under pressure from Windsor.  This is the first time I'm hearing about 


      Well, it was part of our preliminary discussions.  One of the 
solutions proposed was to perhaps extend the system, the system that 
ends right now in Windsor, to extend it and establish a natural gas 
pipeline especially for the Magnola project directly to Asbestos.  So, 
it was part of our preliminary discussions. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      Now, has this project been replaced by the project that we are 
talking about this evening? 


      Well, the project that we are talking about this evening will 
replace this infrastructure or this infrastructure which was part of 
our preliminary discussions. Unfortunately, I do not have all the 
technical details, and unfortunately I was absent during these 
discussions.  So, I don't really have all the data regarding the 
project that we are talking about this evening and the solution talked 
about during our preliminary discussions. 


      Thank you very much. 

      Mr. Paré. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      I just want to come back to the same question, but turning it on 
its head.  I understand that you have a solution for the supply of 
power to Magnola, if this project didn't go ahead. 


      Yes, well, look, there are always solutions.  Now, we have to 
find the optimal solution. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      Well, I'm talking about a viable solution.  Windsor is not 
Montreal, I mean.  So, I imagine you have a solution within the 
relative regional area. 



MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      The other point I want to address is the conditions or 
uncertainties with respect to the company's decision.  I am not going 
to ask you to go into any details or considerations that are going to 
jeopardize your trade secrets, but my question is still quite general.  
It is clear that the decision of going ahead with the project will be 
based on profitability criteria, but at the same time you have had a 
pilot project.  You have carried out various experiments.  You have 
got a financial set-up that you described for us.  Where are the 
uncertainties with respect to the decision?  What do you still have to 
evaluate before deciding whether to go ahead with the project or not? 


      To go ahead with the project, there are four (4) major items.  I 
talked about government authorizations.  I talked about the 
technologies from our pilot plants that have been successfully 

      And the other point is the market, the magnesium market, the 
magnesium market which is growing rapidly, but which is very small.  
Our magnesium plant, which will produce fifty-eight thousand (58,000) 
tons per year, would represent twenty percent (20%) of the world 
market at this point in time.  So, the strategy, the market 
penetration strategy, to borrow a word from marketing, is very, very 
important.  So, the market is a factor.  

      Now, in terms of profitability, like any industrial, major 
industrial project, we are still trying to optimize the development of 
the future plant and the engineering of the future plant to get an 
acceptable level of profitability for our shareholders and our 
partners.  So, it is a normal stage of developmental optimization for 
any significant industrial project. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      Thank you very much. 


      Thank you very much, Mr. Leclerc, for your presentation. 

      I now call on Mr. John Flumerfelt from Portland Natural Gas 
Transmission System. 

      Good evening, Mr. President and members of the Commission, my 
name is John Flumerfelt.  I serve as Director of Government and Public 
Affairs for the PNGTS project. Let me begin by saying that I regret 
that I am unable to address you in French this evening.  I appreciate 
your able willingness to translate for me. 

      PNGTS is obviously the project in the United States to which the 
TQM extension is being designed to accommodate service.  We have 
submitted a brief for your review, and I will just very shortly 
summarize what I think are some of the key points in that brief. And I 
would be more than happy to answer any questions you may have. 

      The brief focuses on two (2) areas which PNGTS thought were of 
greatest interest to this Commission, as it reviews the Canadian 

      The first is the market support for the PNGTS project on the 
United States side. As is described on page 2 of our brief, we have 
seven (7) customers of PNGTS that, thus far, have signed long-term 
binding contracts, twenty (20) year contracts, for PNGTS to provide 
service beginning in November of 1998.  Several of those customers, in 
fact, have submitted testimonials to the Commission, which are 
included in the attachment to our brief.  These customers include a 
combination of gas utilities, energy production facilities, and paper 
mills throughout northern New England. 

      I would add that these are simply the tip of the iceberg.  This 
is not the entire market that PNGTS intends to serve.  I cannot 
divulge proprietary information.  Obviously, we do not announce 
contracts with customers that we have not yet signed.  However, I can 
tell you quite candidly that we are in discussions with a number of 
other customers that represent very significant additions to our 
potential supply.  These include some electric power plants that have 
recently been announced in southern New England and a number of other 

      Most importantly, I would like to point out that these shippers, 
or clients,  will look to us to help them have access to western 
Canadian gas supplies that will be delivered through the Trans Canada 
pipeline system, down through the TQM extension to PNGTS, and through 
the PNGTS system in the United States.  

      We are not in any way dependent upon the development of the 
projects, some of which you heard about earlier this evening, related 
to the development of the Sable Island project.  We are complementary 
with those projects.  However, we are not dependent upon those 
projects, because - and, in fact, we are not in competition with those 
projects, because, on the one hand, we have customers that we have 
contracts signed with; on the other hand, those customers are looking 
primarily at western Canada, and, in all cases, at gas delivered 
through the Trans Canada system to meet their needs beginning in 
November of 1998. 

      I would point out that, as some testimonials state in their own 
words, these customers all have their own reasons for wanting to 
switch to natural gas or use natural gas for their different purposes.  
One customer in particular, which is Northern Utilities, a natural gas 
company that serves fifty thousand (50,000) customers in Maine and New 
Hampshire, similar to Gaz Metro, will basically run out of gas, in 
effect, if they do not have this pipeline in place by November, 1998, 
and will have to implement emergency contingency measures. 


      The translators indicate to me that you are speaking too fast.  
So, if you could speak a little bit more slowly in order that we can 
understand better. 


      Thank you very much, I will do my best.  I was trying to be 
brief in respect for your time.  I will slow down.  As I was saying, 
Northern Utilities has a particularly urgent and pressing need for the 
development of these facilities to be in service in November of 1998. 

      The second issue that we address in the brief is the route 
change from the Vermont route to the New Hampshire route.  I would 
like to point out that that, as I testified before you several weeks 
ago, was a very carefully considered decision that we made based on a 
combination of factors, including access to markets and environmental 

      As I was speaking to you several weeks ago, we had already 
received from the United States Federal Energy  Regulatory Commission 
preliminary environmental approval for the route entering the United 
States in Pittsburgh, New Hampshire, in other words, the East Hereford 

      Subsequent to that decision, on July 14th of this year, we 
received unanimous approval from the Site Evaluation Committee of the 
State of New Hampshire.  That was the major state level environmental 
review of this project. 

      I would point out that even though the New Hampshire reroute, as 
we called it at that time, from Vermont to New Hampshire increased the 
number of miles of pipeline in the State of New Hampshire, the State 
of New Hampshire itself found that it was a preferable route, a better 
route than was originally proposed, and they found that based on both 
environmental and economic reasons. 

      I would also point out that out of all the different proposals, 
I believe it is very important for you to understand that we are an 
independent project.  We are several years probably ahead of other 
projects that are being talked about to supply gas into New England.  
Some of those other projects may have a very difficult time obtaining 
U.S. regulatory approval, especially the undersea pipeline that has 
recently been announced. We do not think we are in competition with 
that, and we do not think that that project is likely to occur in this  
particular time frame. 

      And with that, I would be happy to answer any questions that you 
may have. 


      Thank you very much, Mr. Flumerfelt, for your presentation; if 
the project, in fact, is not realized, does your company have other 
solutions in order to service their natural gas clients? 


      No, we do not. 


      Thank you. 

      Mr. Paré. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      With your permission, Mr. President, I'm going to ask these 
questions in English. I would like to make a short comment, because 
several times in your brief you refer to timely review and approval.  

      Now, the timeliness of the review of the process in which we are 
involved is established by legislation.  So, it is a four (4) month 
process.  So, you can be assured, of course, that the report of this 
Commission will be delivered as provided in those regulations on or 
before the 9th of October. 

      Following that, well, the remainder of the process and 
especially the decision is in the hands of the Minister, who submits a 
recommendation to the government who takes the decision.  I think it 
is important to distinguish between the timeliness of the process and 
what happens after that. 

      The second point, and this is the feeling of the Commission as 
well as something that has come out of what has been heard through 
these hearings, from the American point of view, I could understand 
quite easily that FERC, for instance, has not given further 
consideration to the Vermont alternative, considering that the route 
in the United States was shorter or comparable to what it would have 
been if the Vermont alternative had been followed, whereas the burden 
of bearing a longer route now is in Canadian or Quebec territory, as 
you see.  And if there are some environmental concerns that have been 
alleviated on the American side, well, we are considering here, on 
this side, environmental concerns, many of which have considerable 

      Now, if there had not been - if there were not this 
international frontier boundary between Canada and the United States, 
would it be exact to assume that the first specific point that this 
gas would be delivered to would be Groveton?  Therefore, that one may 
think that the general study area should be somewhere - should 
encompass Montreal and Groveton instead of the boundary, which, quite 
naturally, gives rise to a study zone that would necessarily include 
the Vermont alternative, as well as other alternatives that could go 
up to East Hereford.  In other words, the boundary in itself is being 
seen by both sides as something that is given or that you have to take 
for granted. 

      I must say that when I was in Colbrook attending as a silent 
observer to what happened there, I felt that FERC considered the East 
Hereford point as that it had to be taken for granted, whereas here we 
heard from the TQM people that they took for granted that Pittsburgh 
was the American side. 

      So, my question is:  Wouldn't it have been preferable to 
consider as a study zone something that would encompass both the 
Vermont alternative and the one that is going through the Eastern 
Townships, and that all that be given some kind of a comprehensive 


      Well, I think you are asking me to address a question of 
international environmental regulatory policy, which I am really not 
qualified to do.  I certainly take your point.  However, when we 
assessed the study corridor, as you call it, for this project, we 
initially looked at the Vermont route.  As the project developed - and 
this is very typical in the development of other pipeline projects. 

      In fact, the Iroquois project, which was the last major pipeline 
built between Canada and the U.S. northeast, went through some fairly 
significant line changes, route changes, toward the end of its 
development stage because of the development of the different markets, 
and our project was very similar to that. 

      When we looked at those routes, because of the way the laws are 
currently structured, we looked at the U.S. side of the picture.  We 
obviously have Canadian partners, Trans Canada and GMI, in our 
project, who looked at the Canadian side, but from the perspective of 
the PNGTS project, from the perspective of the U.S. Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, our review necessarily does not extend across 
the border. We would not presume to have any regulatory authority in 
your country or your province. 

      FERC did not simply assume that the East Hereford/Pittsburgh 
point on the border was the proper place to interconnect with TQM.  In 
fact, they reviewed and provided an alternative analysis between the 
original route and the proposed route, and they found that the 
proposed route, from a U.S. regulatory perspective, was the best 
route, as did the regulators in New Hampshire. 

      I'm afraid that's the only way I can answer your question. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      Okay, I take your answer.  A second point, a more precise one, 
while I was in that area, I drove down to a town called Lancaster, New 
Hampshire, where we could see quite well the right of way of the 
Montreal/Portland pipeline.  Now, I did not measure it strictly 
speaking.  However, on a width of more or less fifty (50) feet, I saw 
three (3) service lines.  The first one was a power line.  The second 
one was a crude oil pipeline, and the third one was a natural gas one.  
Will you have to enlarge that right of way in order to accommodate the 
PNGTS pipeline from the point where it would merge with the incoming 
one from TQM? 


      Yes, we would. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      In the area of Berlin or Gorham, so I understand. 


      Depending on - we try to follow existing utility right of way as 
much as we possibly can.  That's a matter of U.S. regulatory policy.  
In all cases, the value of following an existing right of way is that 
we have to clear less land and take less new land than if we had to 
create a brand new right of way seventy-five (75) feet wide.  

      When we are following some of the powerline corridor in northern 
New Hampshire, in the Colbrook area, we are widening out that corridor 
in the neighbourhood - I'm guessing; I'm sorry, I don't have the exact 
data - but ten (10) to twenty (20), twenty-five (25) feet.  

      In other areas, we have to widen certain corridors a little bit 
wider.  It has to do with how close we can get to the powerline or the 
existing pipeline, how much is the cleared area, and what the 
configuration is.  There are certain safety issues about being next to 
a crude oil pipeline versus working very near a high voltage powerline 
that have to be taken into consideration, but, in almost all cases, 
there is some widening of that corridor that is necessary to safely 
install the pipeline. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      I would like either to confirm or correct the following 
information:  first, that the right of way that is cleared in the 
United States is something like fifty (50) feet, whereas here it is 
twenty-three (23) metres or, in other words, seventy-five (75) feet. 


      What is typical in the U.S. at this point in time is that FERC 
will allow us to use seventy-five (75) feet for construction, but then 
maintain fifty (50) feet on a permanent basis.  So, that extra twenty-
five (25) feet reverts back to existing use after construction. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      Secondly, is it correct to say that rights of way could sort of 
duplicate each other? They don't have to be strictly parallel, but you 
could have part of a right of way for one (1) utility covering to some 
extent the right of way of another one? 


      In almost all cases where our right of way is following an 
existing utility corridor, we overlap their right of way as much as we 
can in order to get our facility as close as is really safely possible 
to their facility, therefore reducing the amount of additional 
clearing that is necessary.  

      A lot of it depends.  If, for example, an electric utility wants 
to reserve some space to put in a new powerline some day, because they 
acquired that easement for their long-term future plans and they have 
legitimate rights within that easement, then we would obviously take 
that into consideration. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      Thank you. 


      Mr. Cloutier. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      Good evening.  I just want to make certain comments on your 
brief.  You mentioned that if the service date is past November 1st, 
1998, would have significant negative economic and environmental 
consequences for your shippers.  Regarding the economic impact, they 
would result in expensive emergency contingency measures affecting the 
different companies that you mention in your brief.  

      My comment was - you answered it when the President of the 
Commission asked you if you had any fallback in regards to the non-
respect of November 1st deadline, and you answered that you had 
nothing that you had in mind.  Is that correct? 


      Yes, may I clarify that point?  I was answering the question 
from the perspective of the PNGTS project.  We have only proposed one 
thing, which is the development of a natural gas pipeline.  

      Now, if you ask the customer if Waussau Papers of New Hampshire, 
Meade Corporation, any of our other customers what specifically 
happens to you if the PNGTS project is not in service in 1998, you 
will get seven (7) different answers, one (1) from each different 
customer.  And in only one (1) case, I think, would it be appropriate 
to describe it as a "emergency situation", and that is Northern 

      I would not represent that Waussau faces an emergency situation, 
but Waussau, for example, needs to replace its existing energy boiler.  
It is under an environmental mandate from the State of New Hampshire 
for clean air.  If they don't get natural gas in 1998, they will have 
take some alternative measure which may involve using a different 
fuel, installing other environmental compliance techniques to meet 
those mandates.  

      I can't speak specifically on behalf of each of our customers, 
but, from the PNGTS project, we either build the pipeline or we don't. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 



      Or we build it in one year, or we build it in the next year. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      But, basically, what you are saying is that the companies that 
you have contracts with have fallback situations in the event that the 
pipeline does not respect the November 1st, 1998. 


      Yes, we are saying that they have fallback positions, but that, 
in some cases, those fallback positions are very difficult and 
expensive and potentially catastrophic for their own business 
interests and the interests of their customers which, in one case, is 
fifty thousand (50,000) gas customers in Maine and New Hampshire. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      Okay, regarding the environmental impact that you were saying 
that some companies have got to conform to contain emission standards 
in accordance with the Clean Air Act of 1990, and basically the 
impacts that would occur if the November 1st deadline is not met is 
that there would be no reduction in sulphur particulate and so on and 
so forth.  So, there is definitely an impact associated to that. 

      My comment regards this Clean Air Act that dates back to 1990.  
So, since 1990, American industries know that they must conform to the 
Clean Air Act.  I find it hard to believe that this proposed pipeline 
is the only economically feasible project that has been proposed over 
the last seven (7) years. 


      I think it is important - and I understand your point very well.  
I think it is important to understand though that when the U.S. 
Congress passes a law in one year, it doesn't necessarily mean that 
the law becomes effective in that same year.  For different companies, 
depending on what their - we call them air emission licences, what 
their specific regulatory documents say, they may not have a 
compliance problem until a later year.  

      For example, this year, Waussau Papers is in compliance with New 
Hampshire State air emission laws.  However, they know that, as of 
late 1998 - and I don't understand exactly why, but they represent 
this - they will no longer be in compliance because of a negotiation 
they had with the state regulators or for whatever reason.  I am sure 
that they will not go out of business if the pipeline is not built, 
but they will have to go to a less attractive alternate type of 
mechanism, a solution, to deal with that particular problem. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      Okay, in your brief, you talk about environmental impacts, 
economic impacts, but regarding social impact, there is nothing 
mentioned about that.  You must be aware that both countries, Canada 
and the U.S., have adopted the concept of sustainable development, 
where economic development, environmental protection, and social well-
being are respectful of each other.  

      Based on your presentation where social impacts were non-issues, 
I must conclude that your preoccupations do not fulfil the concept of 
sustainable development, unless further information regarding social 
impacts of not respecting November 1st, 1998, have -
 do you have information on that that you would like to share tonight? 


      I would be happy to share information with you, knowing that 
that is important to you.  The brief was not intended to address every 
issue in your regulatory mandate or, for that matter, in the U.S. 
regulatory mandate.  

      Part of the application process and the review process at both 
the federal and state level in the United States includes what we call 
socio-economic impacts which, I think, is the same concept that you 
use, and we have significant studies that have been done, and 
conclusions that have been drawn as part of the regulatory process on 
those issues. I apologize that we did not include them in the brief, 
but as I said at the beginning, we tried to focus on the issues that, 
at that time, I was aware you were interested in.  

      Certainly, we would not be allowed to build a project in the 
United States, if we did not successfully address those types of 
issues as well. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      Just my closing comment, the responsibility for the economic and 
environmental consequences mentioned in your brief, for me, reflects 
the lack of planning over the last seven (7) years regarding the Clean 
Air Act, and I would like to conclude on that, thank you. 


      Mr. Flumerfelt, thank you very much for your presentation, thank 
you for having come to meet with us. 

      I am now going to call Mr. Onide Gagné. 


      Mr. Chairman and Mr. Commissioners, after having listened to the 
previous briefs, I would just like to point out that my brief is a 
very humble one compared to the ones that I have just heard and all 
the kind of comments that I have heard.  However, I would like to 
present my brief, nevertheless. 

      Gentlemen, I would hereby like to transmit to you my worries and 
concerns concerning the above-mentioned project, which is obviously 
the project of the extension of the natural gas pipeline.  My name is 
Onide Gagné, and I'm the owner of lots number 9A, 10B and 10C of Rang 
11 of the cadastre of Hatley County and the municipality of Magog.  
These three (3) lots represent two hundred and thirty-three (233) 
acres.  I also live on this farm. 

      I received last February a letter coming from the TQM company 
indicating to me that it was possible that a natural gas line might 
pass over my property, and inviting me at the same time to attend an 
information session at Ayre's Cliff.  I went to this information 
session, and I realized that the route proposed by the TQM company 
would go through my three (3) lots for a distance of about three 
thousand nine hundred (3,900) linear feet. 

      In addition, to my great astonishment, the route was going to go 
directly through the middle of my maple grove.  I therefore went out 
to the part of my land where the pipeline was supposed to go through, 
and, to my great surprise, the route was already indicated by ribbons.  
Everything had been done without any authorization.  

      This route went through my woods where we find several century 
old trees such as maples, white and yellow birches, and several other 
species, and where no wood-cutting has been carried out for more than 
seventy (70) years.  So, just on the other side of the fence, there 
has been clear cutting for about seven hundred (700) linear feet. 

      In addition, at another place, the land is extremely rocky, and 
hilly, and no heavy machinery can manoeuvre, and this route as well 
went right through my maple grove, where, just on the other side of 
the fence, there is a pasture. 

      After I complained to the TQM company, proving that the proposed 
route was not that which would have the least impact, the proposed 
route was then displaced to the neighbour's land for the whole 
distance of lot 9A, whereas the route remained exactly the same on 
lots 10B and 10C.  I was informed only after an article which I put 
into the Le Tribune newspaper on May 29th, 1997, and a copy of this is 
attached to the present. 

      I firmly object to this route, because it is going to go through 
my land at about two hundred (200) feet from my sugar shack and which 
I intended to enlarge.  In addition, the TQM company proposes to build 
a compression station right close to my property on a neighbour's 
property.  What is the noise going to be?  Are there going to be 
discharges of gas and odours?  Where is the electrical line to service 
these motors going to go through?  Where are we going to go through in 
order to do the necessary maintenance? Is it safe?  And what are they 
hiding from us? 

      I object to this route, because, for me, the forest is extremely 
important, and I never wanted to, for instance, cut woods or make 
roads or anything else.  What a beautiful opening it is going to be in 
the forest where people want to hunt, using ski-doos and motocross and 
all-terrain vehicles. 

      I object to this route, because every time that I'm going to 
walk out on a road within this beautiful region, I will see everywhere 
the pipeline crosses over the road, a terrible big hole in the forest.  
And how many of these holes are we going to have to endure in the 
years to come for similar projects, and when is it going to stop? 

      I object to this route, because they have never given me 
satisfactory information concerning my safety and that of my family 
and my fellow citizens. 

      I object to this route, because if the BAPE response should be 
favourable to TQM, I will have to sign a perpetual servitude without 
any kind of recourse for an absolutely ridiculous sum of money.  I 
would have to endure the devaluation of my property and continue to 
pay the same amount land taxes.  And I would have to change my 
projects concerning my maple grove, and I should live for the rest of 
my days with constant worry for my safety and that of my family. 

      I object to this route, because I have the conviction, after all 
the information sessions including the two (2) sessions of public 
hearings, that this project was thought up fast, because they want to 
keep ahead of the competition.  You should now read the article which 
appeared in the newspaper called Les Affaires on the 5th of July, 
1997, and a copy is appended.  

      The TQM company presently acts in such a way that indicates that 
the only answer the BAPE can give is going to be favourable, and that 
the public hearings are simply a series of formalities.  We don't have 
the time to study other routes.  We are going to do it as fast as we 
can.  We go on people's land without authorization from the land 
owners to do land surveying.  We have already signed up several land 
owners affected from where we are collecting here and there, the route 
for the property owners who are going to resist more. 

      TQM's actions worry me greatly.  I think that I am being 
oppressed by this company, and my worries and concerns have no 
importance for this company.  In conclusion, I wonder why do they want 
to come and build a pipeline in our beautiful region, when there are 
other alternatives which are clear and would be much more favourable.  
Why don't you use the existing right of way of the Montreal Pipeline 
system which goes through Highwater in order to next go onto Portland, 
U.S.?  And the second alternative, why not use the same route used by 
the Mobil Company, which goes through New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and 
the east coast of Maine, and as well get to Portland. 

      I think for all the reasons and the ones they are going to 
present to you in other briefs, this project should be rejected, 
because the negative effects are, and this will be the case forever, 
something which is harmful for our region.  Thank you very much, Mr. 


      Thank you, Mr. Gagné, we understand your opposition to this 
project based on your maple grove, and the perpetual servitude, the 
loss of value.  You are going to be forced to change your projects.  
You are concerned about your safety.  Now, in terms of the project 
itself and the merits of the project, the need of a pipeline, what is 
clear is that you don't want it to go through your land, but do you 
have any opinion as to the project itself? 


      Yes, I have attended almost all the information sessions that I 
was invited to or that I knew were taking place, and each time I have 
always felt that the company's answers were evasive.  I went to an 
information session in Magog, I forgot - the Azure Club, and I was 
very surprised to see something that we never knew.  I found out that 
they had planned to set up a compression station on my neighbour's 
land, Mr. Côté, and that they were going to expropriate nine (9) acres 
of land.  That's a pretty fair amount of land.  

      I mean I am saying what the heck are we going to do?  I didn't 
have any answers. All that to say that, in terms of noise, they said, 
well, we will comply with the municipal regulations regarding noise or 
decibels and things like that.  All these things, I have never felt 
any trust in this company, because each time we ask them a question, 
the answers were always evasive.  It is just as if they didn't want to 
tell us everything that was going to happen. 

      What I'm saying in my brief is that they are still hiding things 
from us.  We don't know what is going to happen five (5) years from 
now, six (6) years from now.  If it was just a matter of passing a 
pipeline, that's one thing, but you know very well that the text 
regarding the easement, imagine, if you read that, it takes about an 
hour to read that, and you still don't understand anything, because it 
is done by law people and lawyers. 

      What the heck do we do in all that?  We feel really oppressed, 
and we feel quite powerless, absolutely powerless, in the face of this 
company that obviously their pipeline has to go somewhere.  I have 
nothing against a pipeline.  I am not against progress, but I feel 
that this particular route was drawn up in a hurry. 

      It wasn't studied, and I am quite sure of this, because 
immediately I got engineers from TQM that came up, and they are saying 
what are we doing here in a maple grove, and they are saying what are 
we doing here in such an environment that is so rocky.  And then, they 
are in a hurry to change that route.  

      What I am explaining to you is that they did it in such a hurry.  
I mean they don't consult us.  And when I went to check, they all had 
their tapes on the trees.  I learned that there was a pipeline, 
because I was asked to attend a particular information session, but 
they had already started the work before then.  

      I mean this whole business of - I mean the fact that, you know, 
each time we asked a question, we got all kinds of troubles finding 
any information.  And I feel that we don't know everything yet about 
this pipeline, and I have a lot, a lot of concerns.  Even if they are 
going to go through my neighbour's land, what is going to happen?  

      At the East Hereford public hearings, there was a doctor in 
safety.  I forgot what his name was.  And they defined all kinds of 
things, but never did they explain when a compression station is set 
up, that the demand would be greater in the United States, that the 
pressure would be increased.  Did we have any satisfactory answers 
with respect to the safety, the pipes?  

      And once again, it took four (4) information sessions for us to 
find out that the pipes would be thinner in less inhabited areas.  
When they go through the cities, the pipes will be thicker.  But when 
they increase the pressure, they have a better flow.  What will be the 
level of safety?  I have still not had any answers in that regard.  

      I still don't know why expropriate nine (9) acres, nine (9) 
acres of land, to set up pumps and engines.  I mean I still don't have 
any answers.  So, that's why I am very, very concerned.  I have 
nothing against the project itself, but I find that I think there are 
other alternatives that are much more favourable than going through 
our beautiful region including the MRC Memphremagog, as the mayor 
explained to you a minute ago. 


      Thank you; Mr. Paré, no, okay; thank you very much, Mr. Gagné, 
for your presentation.  We are going to take a break here, a ten (10) 
minute break. 

                              SHORT ADJOURNMENT 


      I would now call the Regional Council of the Eastern Townships. 


      Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Commissioners, my name is 
Jean-Guy Dépôt, and I'm the President of the Regional Environmental 
Council of the Eastern Townships. I am just going to give you a short 
idea of what the organization is.  

      We are a non-profit coalition of organizations interested in 
environmental questions, which works in the Eastern Townships in order 
to promote the conservation, the improvement of our environment from 
the point of view of sustainable development. We are obviously trying 
to preserve our environment, to educate and sensitize to environmental 
issues and to the protection of the environment the citizens of the 
Eastern Townships, to encourage research and development in the 
environment and sustainable development. 

      The territory covered by our organization corresponds to the 
seven (7) MRC's, which make up (inaudible) administrative region.  In 
Quebec, there are fifteen (15) CRE's similar to ours, and this has 
created about thirty-three (33) jobs for the young graduates of our 
universities in environmental studies.  So, we have about two (2) 
employees per organization.  And here in the Eastern Townships, we are 
a very dynamic CRE.  We have four (4) permanent employees. 

      We worked very hard for the Eastern Townships' green zone 
movement, and we wish to underline the unique and dynamic character of 
our region, which is trying to restore the natural environment.  It is 
a real cornerstone of our movement, this environmental charter, which 
gives the possibility for those people who want to work on environment 
to promote a theory of sustainable development, to become a partner of 
Estrie Zone Verte, Green Zone Eastern Townships.  

      We have a list of the members, the fifteen (15) members, of the 
Board of Directors.  You will see they are people from all walks of 
life.  There are mayors.  There are prefects who represent the various 
MRC's, the representatives from various environmental organizations. 

      Now, I'm going to try to briefly explain why we are concerned 
about the TQM project.  We believe that this development is going to 
seriously disturb the quality of life and the habits of life of more 
than nine thousand (9,000) residents and people who come and take 
their vacations here in the twenty (20) municipalities and the two (2) 
most important MRC's of our beautiful region. 

      And I have listed for you in order the ten (10) municipalities 
that are going to be affected in the MRC of Memphremagog, and I would 
like to give them to you.  In the right-hand column, you can see the 
very important percentage of people who come here on vacation, and 
this obviously supports what the people from the MRC say.  

      You will see that, in Stukely, eighty-three percent (83%) of the 
inhabitants are people who come here on vacation.  And in Austin, 
where Mr. Nicolet comes from, you will see that it is seventy percent 
(70%).  So, here are the figures which indicate to you that it is a 
region where people come and take their vacation, where people come as 
tourists.  In the MRC of Coaticook, you will also see the list of 
municipalities that shall be affected.  That obviously is a more 
agricultural area, but I'm going to come back to that later on. 

      Now, our opinion on the project as a whole, we wish to indicate 
our vigorous support to the coalition of land owners concerned by the 
pipeline.  I am sure this doesn't surprise you.  We agree with the 
position taken by the council of the Memphremagog MRC which, in its 
June 18th resolution, was very clear in its opposition to the project. 

      We deplore very much the fact that the study - we haven't really 
studied other proposals, for instance, the routing of the pipeline 
through Vermont by way of Highwater and the other possibilities as 
well.  We are entirely in agreement with the uncertainty concerning 
the rate of the water supply of the village of Stukely 6, and we are 
very concerned by the attitude of the promoter.  

      I think it is the fifth or the sixth BAPE hearings that I have 
participated in, and I realize that the promoter presently is contrary 
to - it is breaking all the most elementary rules of courtesy.  Often, 
it didn't even ask the permission of the land owners before 
circulating throughout the property of the residents of the area.  And 
I think anybody who knows the people of the Eastern Townships, this is 
a total lack of judgement.  If you want to sell any kind of project, 
you start by being very, very polite with people.  

      And after having read the text presented at the first series of 
hearings, we learned that the American route was withdrawn from 
Vermont in order to move the route closer to the clients such as 
Waussau Paper and other companies, which is north of New Hampshire.  
And in addition, in order to avoid the sensitive zones of the United 
States, the wetlands, we prefer New Hampshire to the Vermont route.  

      The question we would like to ask is:  Are the sensitive zones 
in the Eastern Townships, and we have talked about them enough, are 
they less important than sensitive zones in Vermont? 

      Another point, during these beautiful summer days which we could 
go swimming, or canoeing, or sailing, we instead have to sit down and 
roll up our sleeves and prepare this brief.  We certainly don't want 
to, in any way, congratulate the person who is responsible for the 
situation.  I could name this person, but I am going to refrain. 

      From the very beginning, we deplored very vigorously the fact 
that the initial application of the PNGTS was changed in March, 1996, 
because the original route, which was falling in the existing right of 
way of the Portland/Montreal Pipeline System, which would have allowed 
us to make certain comparisons.  However, this possibility was 
dismissed very early on. 

      But I read almost all the documents presented over the last few 
weeks, and I have tried to find what is the mystique aura sort of 
surrounding this project.  Why did we change the route?  

      There was a preliminary notice given in September, 1996.  And on 
the 1st of November, 1996, the PNGTS filed an amended application.  At 
Quebec, there is going to be an impact here.  It is going to change 
the distance of the pipeline to be built.  Now, we talked about this 
document in September, 1996.  According to document D-96-29, on page 
13, there was a Me François Hébert, who said that this project - 
because we were discussing at this point of the Lachenaie/Highwater or 
the Sabrevois/Highwater route, which had been abandoned as well.  Me 
Hébert says that this is the best possible optimal route, and this is 
the end of September.  This is the optimal route.  How come they 
changed their minds? 

      And then, on page 3 of the document 21-07-97 from Janin, it is 
specified that the first meeting with the representative of the 
Memphremagog MRC took place at the end of the month of September, 
1996.  So, why did the PNGTS submit their amended application on 
November, 1996? 

      How come had this all been done behind somebody's back?  It was 
an excellent project apparently, according to Me Hébert, but, then, 
bang, no, we can't go through there anymore.  And I think that we 
should have some hard questions to ask.  I have looked at this from 
all possible angles.  I have tried to figure out why, and I have found 
a few answers, but it is certainly not clear. 

      As well, the Eastern Townships region is already being served by 
a pipeline, which is ten (10) inches in diameter from Gaz 
Metropolitain.  Why should we allow another company to put through a 
pipeline of twenty-four (24) inches wide?  We know that the natural 
gas coming from the Sable Island is simply going to be taken to the 
American market.  Why should we accept that this pipeline be even 
longer and that it go through us? 

      We learned in elementary school that the shortest road between 
two (2) places is a straight line, and they are now trying to tell us 
- in fact, they are trying to impose upon us a two hundred and 
thirteen (213) kilometre route, which is much longer than the original 
route which was proposed. 

      For the idea of putting the route along Highway 10 and south of 
Lake Orford far from the present right of way of the present pipeline, 
we would like to quote the response of a representative of the 
Commission Jalbert.  He said it is a sector which is problematic, 
which is difficult.  It is a passage which is extremely narrow right 
around Lake Orford and in the neighbourhood of Mount Orford and the 
Mount Orford Park.  

      They have studied six (6) or seven (7) different items and, 
combining them all, have decided that it could not, from an 
environmental point of view, do this kind of work in the Lake Orford 
region, and would end up disturbing the streams which drain the land, 
and that another route, which would be on the south side of the 
highway, would go through an extremely difficult sector.  It would be 
very difficult to do the work.  It would be extremely expensive, and 
we are going to threaten the wetlands. 

      The present route doesn't correspond to any existing service 
corridor, and the nature of the soil which expands during the freezing 
period is obviously going to have an impact. 

      Why do they have to go to the Eastern Townships when there are 
three (3) other possible routes in order to go and hook up with the 
American market?  We have been informed that there are two (2) 
proposed routes, which go almost in an entirely straight line.  We 
don't have to suffer the disadvantages of a project, which nobody 
wants because of the competition between the energy multi-nationals. 

      And I'm going to skip a few lines there.  I think everybody 
knows those arguments. 

      As we realize, a single of the four (4) projects which have been 
envisaged would go through the Eastern Townships.  We, along with all 
the other stakeholders who want to protect the environment and the 
quality of life, are totally opposed to the idea of a scar in the 
natural landscape, which will vary between twenty-three (23) and 
thirty-three (33) metres.  

      The proposed corridor will go right through the most picturesque 
part of the Eastern Townships.  In 1990, as I mentioned, a study of 
the University of Quebec at Chicoutimi recognized the Eastern 
Townships is a region of Quebec which is the greenest in the whole of 
Quebec.  And this project, which we don't want and which is not 
necessary, it is going to go right through the greenest region of 
Quebec, and the people from the MRC told you.  I mean it doesn't make 

      Here, in Memphremagog, we have thirty (30) lakes, and six (6) of 
them are reservoirs of drinking water.  We have a large population.  
There is fifty-nine thousand (59,000) people who live in Quebec, and 
twenty-two thousand (22,000) of them are in Memphremagog, and half of 
them will be affected by this project for a pipeline. 

      Mr. Nicolet, a little while ago, talked about the fact that it 
is thirty-seven percent (37%) of the total population.  You are going 
to find figures that you perhaps know, but obviously we have the kind 
of infrastructures that make us an important tourist region. 

      The promoter has recognized the difficulty of getting this part 
of the route going across this part of the route, because he said 
there is a possibility of going along the northern side of Mount 
Orford, but this would add thirteen (13) kilometres to the route. 

      So, we have asked a lot of questions.  We still have other 
questions here.  There is a couple of them that I'm going to throw at 

      One is the day after the work is completed in 1998, which would 
disturb the peace and quiet and the sleep of the people living here 
and tourists, this is perhaps going to lead to questions, and perhaps 
there are some people who will contest this, but, you know, the harm 
will already have been done.  The offices will be empty by then.  Any 
error which would affect, for instance, the clearing of wood or alter 
the water level in the water tables is something that can't be 
corrected, and you can't really compensate for it.  The numerous 
disadvantages, as far as I am concerned, means that it would be 
negligible what we would...  

      To justify the passage of the pipeline in the Eastern Townships, 
the promoter talks about the fact that they have to supply perhaps the 
industries Magnola Metallic and the Coaticook industrial park, but, in 
fact, they could very easily be supplied by Kingsey Fall. Mr. Leclerc 
talked about it a little while ago.  

      And if you look in the appendices, you are going to have the map 
that the promoter supplied to us, the map of the region. In appendix 
5, we can see very easily that there is a pipeline which goes through 
Kingsey Fall, and it is a stonethrow from the Magnola project.  We 
don't understand.  The distance would be much shorter if they went 
through Waterloo as the promoter proposes.  

      A little bit later on, we talk about the evaluation of the 
market.  In Coaticook, you should remember that I asked the question 
about East Hereford, and I had the occasion to read the documents 
which were filed.  And it is indicated that, during a meeting, a first 
meeting of seventeen (17) municipalities, are we going to build a 
pipelines for people who are the eternal losers?  We have to make sure 
that there is an important clientele.  Well, then it is clear, but I 
am going to give you two (2) examples, hey. 

      And we have just learned that the cost of the Magnola project 
has gone up astronomically, and that the citizens hope that there is 
going to be hearings held by the BAPE in order to evaluate the project 
and its eventual consequences on the socio-economic health, because 
the substance of various toxins are very worrisome for some people.  

      Therefore, in both cases, the absolute necessity of the TQM 
proposal is not as absolute and immoveable as the promoter pretends.  
We don't want to see this pipeline built here, because it is going to 
disturb the peace and quiet of East Townshippers, both the permanent 
and the ones here on vacation.  

      More than seventy-five (75) kilometres long on a new right of 
way is obviously something that is going to have a terrible effect on 
the fauna.  You remember we talked about the fact that there were 
fourteen (14) deer to each square kilometre.  It is the place in 
Quebec where one finds the most deer.  It is also going to have an 
impact on the species who are in danger of extinction.  

      When reading the documents which I received from the 
(inaudible), we don't realize the kind of impact that this project 
could have on the property and the historical houses, monuments, which 
are almost all situated less than two hundred and fifty (250) miles 
away.  We have these documents.  We have quoted several of them.  We 
have talked about it during the time of the East Hereford 

      Very briefly then, TQM is a branch of eventually Hydro Quebec 
and the Government of Quebec.  They intend to invest two hundred and 
sixty (260), two hundred and seventy (270) million dollars, to 
rebuild.  They will be two hundred and thirteen (213) inches wide, the 
(inaudible).  We are talking about a...  In this context, why?  
Presently, we are in a very difficult economic time?  Why do people 
want to prolong the project by seventy (70) kilometres and cause an 
expensive... almost a hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00)?  We 
can't understand at all.  

      Somebody has totally neglected their task, which is to come up 
with a list of the possible routes.  And is anybody else talking about 
a place where you could put the routes, where it would cause less 
environmental danger?  

      The idea of putting it to the east of the Magog/Orford ski 
station, I don't agree with the MRC on this point, but the MRC hopes 
that it would go either to the south or the north, but, in both cases, 
it is almost an important mission.  If you go to the south, you still 
have to go... and, at the top, you are going to go to Lake Bowker.  
And these two (2) lakes are lakes which are reservoirs of drinking 
water, and they serve seventy-five thousand (75,000) people.  When you 
start thinking like that, it starts to get worrisome. 

      We are persuaded that this gas line is going to have a negative 
impact on the agricultural lands and the tourist group in our region.  
And here, I'm thinking mainly about the Coaticook region.  Can you 
imagine that, out of two hundred and thirteen (213) kilometres, almost 
a hundred and seventy-three (173) kilometres or eighty percent (80%) 
are within the permanent agricultural area?  

      That, of course, is true for the whole length of this road, but, 
in the Coaticook MRC, there are three (3) municipalities.  We find the 
biggest concentration of - and I'm going to give you the exact 
figures:  at Barnston, a hundred and eleven (111) farms; at Compton, 
seventy-six (76); Stanstead East, seventy-four (74). Clifton has a 
total of four hundred and sixty-four (464).  So, fifty percent (50%) 
of all the farms in Quebec takes place in this beautiful region of the 
Eastern Townships. 

      And between breeding farms, cattle farms or other kind of 
animals, and milk farms or dairy farms, the total area of the farms is 
going to - in fact, the permanent servitudes is going to gobble up 
three hundred and ninety-nine (399) hectares and two hundred and 
twenty-one (221) hectares for the temporary widening of the corridor. 

      As well, the promoter says that their gas transportation network 
is going to, in fact, not harm the environment.  There will be no 
harmful discharges, but I mean do they think that we are crazy?  The 
combustion of natural gas also discharges carbon dioxide, CO2, and 
other gasses which hold in the environment the heat which is emanating 
from the surface of the earth.  So, there will be a greenhouse effect, 
which is going to continue to the warming up of our globe, and you 
will see this in more detail in appendix 6.  

      You will see that the citizens of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia 
are the first people who are going to benefit from the exportation of 
natural gas from Sable Island. The important contribution of the 
(inaudible) industries in these two (2) provinces means that there is 
a rate of discharge of carbon dioxide which is double that of Quebec, 
because, here in Canada, it is sixteen point forty-eight (16.48) tons 
of CO2 per inhabitant in Quebec, because we use a lot of electricity.  
It is only eight point forty-two (8.42), whereas, in New Brunswick, it 
is eighteen point ninety-nine (18.95) and, in Nova Scotia, it is 
eighteen point twenty-one (18.21) tons.  

      With the conversion of natural gas, that means the hydro 
transport are using the coal sources.  So, it means that we can both 
reduce the amount of carbonic gasses per capita.  It is also reducing 
the FSA gas which comes from the Atlantic region. 

      If necessary, we can think of servicing the northeastern U.S. 
states, but by using the shortest route which is a straight line, 
which goes down through Maine and New Hampshire.  

      And the representative from TQM has tried to convince us of how 
safe his pipeline is going to be.  Remember, there was a sort of a 
fierce argument.  Mr. Genest tried to calm it down, but if I have 
understood properly, he said that, at some point, in Quebec, there has 
never been a problem with TQM and Trans Canada Pipelines.  But, at 
some point, if I have read this text properly, they said that, in 
Canada, there hadn't been any break in the pipes.  There had never 
been any leak, any mortal accident, on the Trans Canada Pipeline 

      But if we look at table 6.1 in the appendix, it is not exactly 
what we see.  There have been seven (7) breakages and one (1) leakage.  
See appendix 6.  Since 1977, there have been nine (9) breakages and 
six (6) leaks, for a total of fifteen (15) deficiencies through what 
they call FCST in Canada over the past twenty (20) years. 

      We are quite sceptical.  And even if they talk about the annual 
probability study of mortality, it is better to believe what we read.  
We are probably not experts, but we know how to read, as we said the 
last time.  The reports are quite, quite revealing on this.  

      There are many of us who do not want such a pipeline to go 
through the Eastern Townships.  The evidence is that look at the small 
number of agreements signed by TQM for the period from March 1, 1997 
to June 20th, 1997, for the entire project.  Only ninety-five (95) 
owners have signed, imagine; in the Eastern Townships, forty-eight 
(48) owners out of a possibility of two hundred and twenty-one (221), 
according to our figures.  That's only twenty-one point seven two 
percent (21.72%), who have apparently signed.  

      Now, if you continue, the approach, as the promoter says that 
the result of their approach is low.  The product poorly sold.  The 
owners are probably waiting for your decision before agreeing to any 
compensation offers whatsoever, or perhaps they are probably just 
against this project because of its many negative impacts.  Thank you 
very much for your patience. 


      Thank you very much, Mr. Dépôt, for the Commission, your brief 
is particularly important, given the composition and role that you 
play and the official recognition of this structure by the government.  
If you look at the composition of the Board of Directors, they are 
representatives of public agencies, of the university sector.  The 
quality of the expertise with which your organization has worked can 
be judged.  This is why you have given a very categorical and firm 

      I would ask you one last time, which is the same question I 
asked earlier on to the representative of the MRC.  In the context of 
sustainable development and using the method of incorporating the 
project properly into the environment, can you still envisage such 
public equipment in your region, or if there is nothing that can be 


      Mr. President, we already have a pipeline.  We have managed to 
raise the awareness of the authorities.  You saw them earlier on, Mr. 
Riverin and Mr. Nicolet.  They came and admitted that they had not 
been made aware of the dangers of a pipeline before.  Now, they know 
those dangers.  They talked about the possibility of including it in 
their development plan.  We find, unfortunately, this project is not 
possible.  We have looked at it from every possible angle, going more 
to the north, more to the south.  There is no place there for it.  

      And I think that's an error that TQM made, coming up with a 
project of this size in the Eastern Townships, thinking that perhaps 
it is just going to go through.  Because when you look at the initial 
documents, the very initial documents, they were going to go through 
the exact same place, in fact, the worst place that I would identify, 
i.e. north of Lake Orford and south of Orford Park.  Now, there, you 
already have a train line going through.  You have an electric line, 
and a ten (10) foot gas pipeline. 

      Based on the initial plans, they said they had wanted to add 
another twenty-four (24) foot pipeline.  Now, they have finally 
discovered that it couldn't work.  Then, they tried to find other 
places, but it still doesn't work. 

      And I am saying, look, it is all well and good to have 
sustainable development and all the rest of it.  I'm a member of the 
Regional Development Commission.  But if it is not possible, it is not 
possible.  I mean that's how we managed to convince the municipal 
officials also, because they realize, they too, that this thing is 
going to cause all kinds of significant problems.  

      And considering that there are other possibilities, they can go 
elsewhere.  It is not because we are saying it is not in my backyard, 
but if there is no other possibilities, but we know that there are 
other possibilities.  We have read the newspapers, and we refer to 
that in our brief.  And we are saying and we believe that it is going 
to go elsewhere, because there is competition from other companies.  

      And when you read the documents that have been added into our 
brief, you can see that the two (2) projects that are in a straight 
line, I believe they would be prioritized by the NEB.  And the NEB is 
consulting us right now on the value or the environmental impacts of 
these projects.  I mean I respect your Commission a great deal, but it 
is the National Energy Board that is going to have to decide at the 
end of the day, perhaps after the month of October after you have 
tabled your report. 

      We are saying, unfortunately, it is not possible to go through 
here, and it is going to have too much impact.  They can go elsewhere, 
if they can. 


      Mr. Paré; Mr. Cloutier. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      Mr. Dépôt, I just want to ask you a hypothetical question.  You 
don't seem to want the pipeline to go through your territory.  Now, my 
question is hypothetical in the sense that if there was a local 
company or industry that needed energy and that this industry had a 
positive impact in terms of jobs, in other words, that it would create 
regional wealth, you would be faced with a situation where you are 
going to have to compromise, i.e. allow the industry to be set up and 
allow for the infrastructure to be set up and create jobs.  What kinds 
of compromises would you be prepared to do to have such an industry 
set up its operations in your region? 


      We would have to think about it and discuss it at our Board of 
Directors.  Maybe the discussion would be quite long, but knowing the 
members of the Board, Mr. Genest talked about the twenty-four (24) 
people who are there, but there are twelve (12) representatives of 
environmental groups who are there.  

      It is all well and good to create jobs.  I mean I am all for 
creating jobs, but, look, let's not kid ourselves.  You cannot destroy 
the entire environment to create jobs, because the next thing you know 
we are not going to have any air to breath or any water to drink.  
Everybody will have jobs, but things aren't going to be pretty.  So, 
we have to try to balance things.  

      I know your question is a bit troublesome, because it is not 
very easy to make a decision, but we have shown - about the past two 
(2) months that you have come to our region, we have been able to show 
that we are in a region where we don't have a lot of large industries.  
The Magnola project would be probably one of the biggest projects with 
Domtar that we have.  

      Our region is more resort or tourist-oriented and farm-oriented.  
That's why we are proud to be in the greenest region.  And it is a 
green region, because we don't have a lot of stress, environmental 
stress, significant environmental stress, and we don't want these 
kinds of stresses.  

      And when we are told, and we don't take this kindly, when we are 
told you are going to have to accept this for Magnola to be able to go 
through, you have to accept this, so that we can create an aquatic 
park in Coaticook, I mean that's not really the correct situation.  

      I don't know if I am answering your question, but it is not 
obvious, you know. You are going to have to be much more specific with 
your question, because there are significant industries here.  We have 
a pipeline, a gas pipeline here.  I am not convinced that we need a 
second one. 


      Thank you very much, Mr. Dépôt, for your presentation.  I would 
like to call on Mme. Louise Barrette and Mr. Yves Robert. 


      Good evening, Mr. President, my name is Yves Robert.  I live in 
a farm in Ste-Catherine de Hatley.  Part of my farm is in Magog County 
and the other part in Hatley County.  We own a farm of two hundred and 
eighty (280) acres, and the pipeline will pass at about two thousand 
(2,000) feet from our land, and we don't want that. 

      I would like to take this opportunity to express my doubt and 
disagreement with this pipeline project that we are discussing right 
now.  I have my doubts about the integrity of the promoters.  In the 
fall of 1996, people other than those authorized to hunt came into my 
land.  I never had any visit or telephone call asking me for 
permission to do the necessary work for the TQM pipeline.  This 
project was hidden to us by the promoters since I was at work.  

      Here I must tell you that, these days, when you buy a farm and 
you are not a son or a daughter of a farmer, you have to work outside 
the house in addition to the work you have at the farm.  

      Well, while I was at work, my neighbour, Mr. Normand Lamoureux, 
had the good idea of going to see these people and ask them who they 
were and what they were doing on my place.  And the answer was, Mr. 
President, we are passing gas through here. What an answer!  These 
people said they were going to come and see me in the morning to ask 
for my permission to come to my place and to inform me about the 
project.  They never came, particularly not after the fact. 

      On January 29th, 1997, at the information meeting in Ayre's 
Cliff, a meeting to which I was never invited as an owner who was 
involved, fortunately a neighbour called me to tell me about it, at 
that meeting, Mr. Delisle made excuses saying that these people had 
come to my private property, and he promised to solve the problem. 

      Around May 27th, 1997, employees of Gaz Metropolitain stopped on 
my land without coming to see me beforehand.  Since it was time for me 
to go to work - I'm a school bus conductor, and I cannot afford to be 
late - I came up to them and I said I wanted to talk to the person in 
charge.  My question was:  What are you doing here at my place?  Mr. 
Desroches, who is an employee at Gaz Metropolitain who was 
responsible, asked me arrogantly or responded with arrogance, "I am 
not at your place. My truck is on the road".  I then asked him, "And 
what about your equipment, your people, your employees?"  And he 
answered, "I am an agent, and I can go wherever I want". 

      Mr. Chair, shocked at these answers, I nevertheless had to go to 
work, so that I couldn't be late, and I let these people remain at my 
place, people whom I didn't know. When I came back two (2) hours 
later, I took steps to get them out of my place.  After several phone 
calls to Mme. Marie-Eve Jean of the BAPE, Mr. Stéphane Bertrand, Mr. 
Réjean Racine of Urgel Delisle, and the Sûreté du Québec, I got these 
people out of my property. 

      On June 4th, 1997, at the information meeting of Magog, Mr. 
Delisle apologized once again profusely, promising that this would 
never happen again. 

      On the 5th of June, 1997, a rental truck passed in front of my 
house without stopping, a new way of not getting identified.  They 
went and parked a little bit further off in a fresh - sorry, on the 
3rd of June, not June, 3rd of July.  After waiting a few minutes, and 
within which time they had all the opportunity to install their 
equipment, about fifteen (15) minutes, I finally decided to expel them 
once again. 

      On June 25th and 26th, 1997, during the public hearings in 
Magog, the promoters apologized for the third time that that would not 
happen again.  On June 27th, 1997, during the last evening of the 
public hearings in Magog, Mr. Bruce Miller filed a complaint with 
respect to an unannounced visit, and Mr. Delisle, as he knows so well 
to do, apologized once again and promised that the little workers 
would be fired, if they started this all over again. 

      On July 4th, 1997, the next day following the public hearing in 
East Hereford where the promoters apologized once again for visits 
without permission, somebody came into my pasture, moved an electric 
fence, and frightened my animals once again.  In fact, you should have 
received an official complaint from this.  See letter dated July 7, 
1997, appendix 1. 

      The person in charge, Mr. Jean-Luc Guimond of the firm Johnson 
Vermette, and employees of Sherman Laboratories went on my request.  
Following this event, Mr. Guimond came and saw me to justify his 
actions.  When returning home around three o'clock (3:00), Mr. Barbeau 
of the firm Janin Construction called me to apologize and said heads 
were going to roll. 

      A few days later, Mr. President, Mrs. Lamarche - I'm adding 
things here, because this happened after.  Mme. Lamarche from Poisson 
Bazinet left a message on my answering machine saying:  We are coming 
to your place to do some tests.  Mr. Chair, is this the way to ask for 

      Mr. President, in this context, after all this lack of respect 
for private property and people, allow me to express my doubts about 
the good faith and honesty of the promoters. 

      Another of my concerns has to do with the calculation of a lump 
sum.  Another of my concerns is the way that they calculate the loss 
of forest land.  For my part, if I calculate that, with selective 
cutting, I can lose about one point five (1.5) lines of wood in 
revenue per year, how come I am not receiving the equivalent of 
sixteen thousand five hundred dollars ($16,500.00) per acre for my 
forest land.  See appendix 2, where they are calculating for a hundred 
(100) years. 

      Environmental impacts, having attended the public hearings in 
Magog, I was able to see that the promoter is quite a master in 
skating by providing evasive answers or quite simply avoiding to 
answer the questions to our biggest concerns. 

      One question which remains unanswered for me is the impact of 
helicopter flights at low attitude on animals.  As far as I am 
concerned, I have a herd of about two hundred (200) lambs.  Most of 
them are pregnant through different hit induction techniques that are 
well known to land farmers and to allow them to be ready for sale at 
Christmas.  To my knowledge, no impact studies have ever been done 
regarding the early calving caused by low flight altitudes.  

      From experience, I have seen that the animals are frightened by 
noise and panic once they see such an engine.  As for the pregnant 
lambs who are frightened and panicked, the rate of early calving is 
quite high.  In my calculations from my own data, a loss of ten 
percent (10%) of dead lambs before their birth would lead to losses in 
annual revenues of nine thousand dollars ($9,000.00), when I have my 
herd of about four hundred (400) lambs and more.  These fees are 
forecast, because neither the promoter nor the MAPAQ have done any 
impact studies. 

      Another question which came to mind after the hearings is that, 
apparently, noise from a pipe can be perceived.  As you know or as we 
know that animals are very sensitive to sound and even to ultrasound, 
what are the effects of these sounds on our pregnant and breast-
feeding lambs?  It seems that there will be effects on the production 
of milk, which will mortgage the output of our lambs that are breast-
fed up till the age of two (2) months. 

      Mr. President, we have a few suggestions like most people.  In 
the current context, we cannot agree to let this pipe go through under 
our soil, both because of the negative impact on the environment for 
our lands and for the environment in general. How can we justify this 
decision to our children who, in twenty-five (25), thirty (30), 
thirty-five (35) years from now, will have to deal with this pipe in 
the soil? 

      The reason or the answer saying, oh, it is not bad, I'm not 
going to be here has already been used in the past, you know, 
regardless of the future of our children, the young children, and the 
future generations.  This is why we have such significant 
environmental problems today. 

      The purpose of such a pipeline is apparently simply pecuniary.  
So, why a pipeline? Well, it is for promoters to be able to make money 
by selling gas to the United States. Mr. Flumerfelt explained it to us 
earlier on.  It is not for humanitarian reasons such as bringing 
electricity to a rural environment, as it was done in the 1940's and 
1950's, or for the welfare of citizens, for example, such as allowing 
people to heat their homes. 

      For me, it is inconceivable that they would destroy a forest, a 
farm, and wetlands, and jeopardize the lives of animals and vegetation 
just for the profit of certain shareholders who want money so badly.  
We believe in the integrity of our territory.  

      If the Americans want Canadian natural gas at all costs, why 
don't they support the environmental impacts inherent in this 
pipeline, or why don't they use the existing route which goes from 
Montreal to Portland through Highwater and that belongs to Mobil Oil 
and its partners?  

      Another suggestion, Mr. President, why don't they use the 
Maritimes and Northeast pipelines project, which is supported by the 
governments of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia?  

      Another solution, that of Tatham Off Shore, a Texas company that 
wanted to construct a double pipeline that would take gas from Ile des 
Sables to Hibernia, this pipeline will be mostly under water over two 
thousand two hundred (2,200) kilometres from Newfoundland to 
Massachusetts.  See appendix number 4, an article in La Presse by Mr. 
Paul Durivage.  I don't have the exact date. 

      In conclusion, I would like to point out that the promoters have 
not respected private properties, as well as us, the owners concerned 
by the passage of the pipeline. I still have my doubts on the fact 
that there is not going to be a second or even a third pipeline or 
even a pumping station in our neighbourhood.  Are we going to wind up 
with several easements, as you can see right now in Stukely and 

      I am wondering to what extent these promoters are taking our 
concerns and our fears seriously.  As far as I am concerned, I am 
against this pipeline going through the Eastern Townships.  Thank you 
very much, Mr. President. 


      Thank you very much, Mr. Robert, for your testimony, which is 
very clear.  The Commission has understood and understands your 
arguments.  And, in fact, we received the complaints that you talk 
about with respect to the unauthorized passage and repetitive 
intrusions on your territory.  In fact, the chronology that you have 
presented is quite captivating.  

      Now, if the events that you relate are true, and it seems that 
they are true, I mean this is quite - you know, people who hear these 
things find them quite revolting to the extent that such actions sort 
of disrupt the necessary or harmonious communications that should 
exist whenever you have this kind of project. 

      Mr. Paré, do you have a question? 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      Mr. Robert, you say that the purpose of this pipeline is only to 
make money, and you know, like I do, that transportation or 
transmission projects require investments.  I mean our system works 
with investments and profits.  

      You say that such a project would be even more acceptable if it 
was for humanitarian reasons or even for the welfare of citizens, but 
as you know, we are in a period of global trading.  Look at the Free 
Trade Agreement in Canada or the North American Free Trade Agreement 
between Canada, the United States, and Mexico.  Now, more and more 
trade is getting more and more global, and it goes both ways.  

      Now, for projects that could have an impact here, but that would 
still benefit Quebecers or Canadians, I mean you have got other 
projects that transport energy or other things to the United States 
and that we consume here.  Don't you think that we are heading more 
towards this kind of system in trade? 


      I agree with you, Mr. Paré, except that as we heard earlier on, 
there is a pipeline right now that they could use without destroying 
our region in the Eastern Townships and destroying farms in the 
Eastern Townships. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      So, basically, what you want is for the route to be revised 
rather than the project. You are not completely against the project. 


      I think it is both.  A company like TQM or Gaz Metropolitain 
that only thinks about profits without thinking about the 
environmental consequences, as they are doing now, and the way they 
are going about their business, if they continue doing that, then I'm 
against any project whatsoever. 


      Thank you very much. 

      Mrs. Barrette. 


      Good evening, Mr. President, Mr. Commissioners, now, my 
presentation would be a lot less technical than what we have seen so 
far.  We are only presenting what we know.  There are a lot of things 
that I still don't know.  You practically have to be an engineer to 
understand all the data that have been issued that we have heard this 

      I am the wife of Yves Robert.  So, I am concerned as much as he 
is of the farm. I would like to take the opportunity that I'm given to 
express my profound concerns about this project.  

      Now, during the first part of the public hearings held in Magog, 
I never received the assurance on the part of the promoters of an 
agreement with the MRC and/or with the municipalities in the case of 
an emergency.  At the very most, what they said was that it was up to 
the municipalities together with the promoters to prepare the 
emergency plan.  Now, following what we have heard from the 
representatives from the MRC this evening, I think that just confirms 
the fact that there wasn't any agreement with the promoter for an 
emergency plan.  

      For me, something happened.  Our neighbour, who was at a hearing 
in East Hereford, received a call, an emergency call, that there was a 
fire at his place. Unfortunately, his garage, which contained his 
farming equipment, was completely burned down.  Later on, we learned 
that a fire truck had to be boosted a few times, when it came to, you 
know, get away from the fire location.  So, the truck just wasn't 

      Now, my question is:  Are we going to have to rely on this kind 
of equipment in the case of an emergency?  If so, well, then, I'm very 
worried and I'm very confused.  If not, would the municipalities have 
to get more adequate equipment to meet the specific situation of an 
emergency related to a pipeline?  If so, at what cost, and who would 
pay? Once again, the taxpayers?  

      Or perhaps the promoters, maybe they would be able to pay for 
all the additional costs involved.  You see, I think that when you 
have a company, you have to assume all the inherent costs of this 
company, and don't have other people paying, and then you taking the 
profits.  I'm talking about situations, emergencies caused by a 
pipeline.  It should be the promoters who would pay for these costs.  
In any case, for our case, for our farm, nobody pays for our expenses.  
We pay for all our expenses at the farm.  

      In this regard, I would like to have a copy of the agreements 
reached between the municipalities and the MRC's for everybody's 
safety, but I understood that apparently they don't exist. 

      A second question for which I didn't get any specific answer 
during the Magog public hearings, which is the following:  The impact 
study which has been carried out, of which I have never seen a copy, 
and does it really exist, hey?  I really don't know. Supposedly, it 
demonstrates that it is a route which has the least impact.  The least 
impact for who?  The least impact for why?  I have never had proof 
that there had been an environmental impact study.  Is this lesser 
impact from the point of view of the profits of the promoters?  

      In any case, allow me to doubt the good faith of the promoters 
in this regard.  I have the impression that they couldn't care a less 
about the environmental impact, and that all they want is to make sure 
that their pipeline can go through with the least cost possible to 

      Apart from the negative environmental impact caused by the 
passage of this pipe, have we thought about the negative impacts that 
it is going to have on animals?  Have we thought about the moral 
negative impacts on people living in the area?  Have we thought about 
the long-term impact?  

      I haven't heard a single time about a sustainable development 
during the public hearings, which I attended.  In any case, when we 
know that, in agriculture, we have to submit management plans for our 
farms from an environmental point of view for sustainable development, 
what are the promoters required to do?  

      Do the promoters think about the future?  My personal opinion is 
that they don't think about the future, because the people who are 
making decisions within TQM are not going to see any kind of negative 
impact on their life or that of their children.  They are not 
concerned about anything else except their profits they can make with 
this pipeline. I am extremely worried by the fact that companies can, 
therefore, sacrifice the integrity of a territory just to make more 
money and profit.  

      I am not entirely against progress.  If we have to have a 
pipeline somewhere, I think it has to be done with the least possible 
impact.  That's why I wonder why the promoters don't recommend using 
the most direct possible line in order to get the gas to the United 
States.  I realize that I'm saying what other people have said, that 
is to say by the existing pipeline through Highwater.  From there, the 
pipeline can go to Portland.  Is it because, the United States, there 
are environmental standards which are more severe and more exacting 
than our standards here, and it is very difficult to have the permits? 

      That's the question I'm asking, but it is so complicated all of 
that.  And I find myself thinking that it is still a short-term vision 
that prevails like in the case of people saying, well, it is no 
problem, I'm not going to be here in forty (40) years. 

      To conclude, I am not at all convinced that the promoters, in 
fact, have done their homework, whether it  be from an environmental 
point of view or in terms of the way they have approached the land 
owners concerned by the passage of the pipeline.  

      From my experience with the promoters and their employees, the 
promoters act as though this gas was going to go through our land, as 
if we were being faced with a fait accompli.  That's why I would like 
to express my gratefulness for having been able to express my worries 
and my concerns in the face of this Goliath so greedy for profits. 


      As for the responsibility of an enterprise, that has been 
clearly established.  It is the total responsibility of the 
enterprise, the company, to pay for all supplementary or additional 
equipment which would be required by the pipeline, not the basic 
equipment that we always have to have to give ordinary public 
services, but any additional needs. 

      You have pointed out in your presentation that there are going 
to be negative moral impacts.  We haven't heard about that very often.  
I would like you to explain to me what you mean by negative moral 
impact.  Are we talking about aesthetic prejudice, or a loss of 
enjoyment of life, or quality of life?  What are you talking about? 


      Amongst other things, it is certainly a loss of aesthetic 
pleasures, when you cut through a twenty-three (23) wide swath through 
a wood.  We have always done selective cutting.  In fact, I don't 
think we are entitled to - we can't do that kind of clear cutting, we 
farmers.  When you see that kind of scar going through the land, 
that's something of an aesthetic negative impact.  

      But I think just the stress, the fact that you have to go 
through these public hearings, I think that it's a very important 
moral negative impact on me as a resident.  I don't know for other 
people, but, for me, it is just knowing that there are people who can 
take away our land that we have worked on so hard, that we have tried 
to build some kind of acceptable quality of life, that they come and 
say, hey, we need so many metres of your land and, bang, that's it; 
that's all.  

      And you have the impression that you don't have any choice or 
any control over this.  It is as if a guy went over to my neighbour 
and said I need your entry, well, you don't have a word to say about 
it. That's it.  That's the way I see it.  That's how I feel. I feel as 
though I'm just a drop of water in the ocean, that I don't count at 
all.  And that, for me, is a major and a very important negative moral 

      To have to produce a brief, we never know how it is going to 
come out.  It is perhaps something which is simple and straightforward 
for you people who have experience in that field, but, for us simple 
citizens, it is something enormous that we have to do.  And to see all 
these people turn up on our land as if it was perfectly normal, that's 
very difficult to accept, hey. 

      And if this happens, it is clear that we are always going to be 
worried about the fact that the pipeline is going to be going through 
so close to us.  Just to know that the pipeline is going to be so 
close, it is very worrisome.  I don't know what kind of accidents may 
occur.  I don't want to have this kind of pipeline.  

      I think it is really - it is just a matter of a big company, 
which is so big, the people who are making decisions aren't really 
concerned with this, because it is a big company. They don't have any 
name.  They are impersonal.  But, for us, we are people who are 
concerned.   We are there.  We are going to be always living beside 
that pipeline for the rest of our lives.  That's how I feel, in any 


      Mr. Paré? Thank you very much for your presentation, and as for 
Mrs. Barrette's brief, I can assure you you produced a very good 

      Mr. Jean-Guy Dépôt. 


      Mr. President and Mr. Commissioners, this time I am accompanied 
by Mr. Jean-Claude Thibault, who is the President of the Coalition of 
the Associations for the Protection of Lakes and Bodies of Water.  We 
call this organization RAPPEL.  That's the short form.  Jean-Claude 
Thibault is the President of the organization, and I sit on eight (8) 
Board of Directors, and I'm the Treasurer of this organization.  And 
so, I am going to let Mr. Thibault speak to you about the importance 
of lakes in the Eastern Townships. 


      Mr. Thibault. 


      Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to 
present our excuses for the fact that we don't have a brief.  RAPPEL 
is a very young organization, which was only founded seven (7) months 
ago.  And it is our extremely busy intensive period, where we have to 
meet the fifty-two (52) other associations.  

      This is the summer period.  For the associations of the lakes 
and bodies of water, it is in the summer that they have almost all 
their activities going on, our activities which are those of education 
and information.  We are trying to contact more than five thousand 
(5,000) active members, potentially almost twenty thousand (20,000) 
waterfront members, who might become members of the RAPPEL group.  

      As well, it was mentioned in a certain number of the briefs, 
particularly that from the Memphremagog MRC, we are also in the midst 
of an extremely busy period in terms of reviewing the development plan 
of eight (8) MRC's and a hundred and eighteen (118) municipalities. 

      So, this evening, we are just going to make a very comment.  
Although the subject is extremely interesting for us and very 
important, we were not able to study the whole issue in depth, and I 
am sure you know that it is a very complex question.  

      First, I would like to say that our organization is there in 
order to protect the quality of water and the quality of life for 
people living around and on the water.  We have talked a great deal in 
the last twenty (20) years about the quality of water.  That remains 
extremely important, but we are starting as well to become just as 
concerned with the quality of life on the water.  We know that, with 
the arrival of the sea-doos, that there is a real problem. 

      Our main activities is summer, just in order to give you the 
context of our action, our activities in which we encourage our 
members to revegetate, and renaturalize their banks, and to 
restabilize them.  And I want to point this out, because I'm going to 
come back to this project of the question of the pipeline.  It is one 
of the things which worries us the most.  In all the documents which 
we consulted, it is a major piece of information which we find is 
totally missing. 

      I would like to just give you a few details about the 
extraordinary vision of the people living around Memphremagog.  And I 
know that we use a lot of superlatives, but it is because it is 
inevitable when you think of the recreational tourist mission of the 
Memphremagog region and of the whole Eastern Townships, which 
corresponds to the territory of the seven (7) MRC's. 

      We evaluate that, at presently, there are about seven hundred 
and twenty-five thousand (725,000) lakes in Quebec, and we are one of 
the places on this planet which has the most fresh water lakes, along 
with northern Ontario and Scandinavia.  We are living in one of the 
places which is recognized as one of the major, major zones of fresh 

      It is one of the strongest images that people have of Quebec, 
the American or the French tourists who come to immerse themselves in 
our nature wonderland here in Quebec, but also there is a surprising 
(inaudible) region.  It is in the southwest corner of Quebec.  We find 
only seventy-two (72) bodies of water.  

      Seven hundred and twenty thousand (720,000) lakes, and, here, 
the reality is that they are only - and I will add something to this 
to complete the picture.  Only seventy-two (72) bodies of water, and 
there are only eight (8) that are more than five (5) kilometres long.  
And forty-two percent (42%) of these seventy-two (72) are in the 
region which this corridor for the pipeline will go through.  

      Therefore, you will understand that these lakes are real oases, 
and I'm using these words very deliberately.  They are oases with a 
very sensitive ecological system and which is presently enduring great 
pressure.  And saving these lakes is absolutely essential for the 
sustainable social economic development of our area.  

      Why the social touristic development is so important?  You have 
to understand that the regional economic tendencies in the Eastern 
Townships over the last thirty (30) years means that the manpower 
which used to be involved almost entirely in secondary industry is 
towards the tertiary industries, what we generally call the service 

      And, here, the service sector is mainly enriched by recreational 
tourism, and it is impoverished by the cuts in the public service, 
which means that the tertiary sector has been stabilizing, but this 
transfer is extremely important and historical from our point of view, 
of which a bare majority was involved in secondary industries which 
are now a majority which are involved in the tertiary service sector. 

      So, when people talk about the priority that recreational 
tourism is for us in the Eastern Townships, it is something which you 
always have to consider in any analysis of our development.  That's 
why we call our lakes and our bodies of water our blue gold. And 
because of their relative rarity, they are too fragile to be exposed 
to new environmental attacks.  

      Allow me here a little parenthesis to your hypothetical question 
as to whether we had to make a compromise, what could this compromise 
be in terms of a heavy industry, a transformation which would require 
natural gas.  I thought this question was extremely interesting, 
because it means that we are going to have to make a choice, and these 
choices have to be made on the basis of priority, a real Sophie's 
choice.  And the same way as Sophie had to make this terrible choice, 
we have to make a choice on the basis of the following argument.  

      If we were to transpose this choice into a development plan, it 
is that this region is in priority a recreation touristic region.  And 
if the industry was to directly attack the industry that we are 
talking about, the hypothetical question, was to directly attack the 
potential of our region for recreational tourism, we would have to 
reject this choice, and we would have to find other choices.  

      And if there are other alternatives, which seems to be the case, 
not only a hypothetical case, but it seems to be presently the case, 
as a plan, I wouldn't even hesitate.  As a representative of RAPPEL, I 
am sure you know the answer.  We don't hesitate in terms of making a 

      When we realize that neither the biophysical data nor, in 
consequence, the truly effective protective measures for our aquatic 
areas correspond to what is going to be required by the building of 
such an important infrastructure, you will understand why we are so 
astonished and why we feel so insecure faced with the promoter's 

      That's why we recommend to the Commission of the public hearings 
to reject this project, as it was presented and prepared up until now.  
It is a final principle in environments - as in love.  When you have a 
doubt, you should abstain. 


      Thank you for this note of wisdom, which would - however, it is 
a kind of a tiresome principle. 


      If you would allow me, Mr. President, I would like to continue, 
and I would like to talk to you about the sheet that we gave you, 
where you will find, on the one side, the main bodies of waters in the 
Eastern Township.  We mentioned we didn't have very many.  

      On this page, you will see the lakes that are very important for 
our region which supply, for instance, drinking water to our citizens.  
You will see that we have circled six (6) lakes, six (6) of the lakes 
which are fragile, which are less than five (5) kilometres square, 
which we want to protect for future generations. 

      And between now and the end of this month, we are going to make 
public the results of a study carried out by five (5) master students 
in environmental studies at the University of Sherbrooke.  And I don't 
want to give you the scoop, but one of the things that is indicated is 
that we have to take immediately preventive measures in order to truly 
protect the quality of water in the reservoir lakes, which are very 

      But with the TQM project, there is a risk that we may affect the 
little Orford Lake. And we can see on the other side of this sheet of 
paper, it is a little bit like when we give the (inaudible) indication 
for the twenty-five (25) lakes in the Eastern Townships.  This is a 
kind of the report card.  

      The first lake at the top is not my fault, but that's right in 
my backyard, but the second lake is the Orford Lake with a (inaudible) 
code of one point seven (1.7) out of ten (10).  So, that means it is a 
(inaudible) lake.  It is a lake which has an excellent (inaudible) of 
indication, which is aging very well.  It is the second best lake in 
the whole Eastern Townships, but the second pipeline, which would go 
through to the west and the south of this important body of water, is 
already encircled by the north in-between the lake and the Mount 
Orford Park by a first pipeline, an electrical line, a railroad.  

      And we are very worried that when this work is going to be done 
to build this pipeline, the first that was in this basin is going to 
be damaged, because when you went and visited these lakes, you realize 
that if the pipeline goes through Mount Chagnon, they are going to 
affect an enormous levelling out between Mount Chagnon and little Lake 
Orford at the bottom.  Can you imagine the kind of sediments that are 
going to come down from the mountain, which will probably irreparably 
damage the lake.  

      As we can see on this sheet, Lake Orford is a reservoir for the 
Eastman municipality.  And when we studied it, we were able to study 
how the lake works.  It is extremely fragile, the lake, how it lives 
and breathes.  

      My friend, a little while ago, said how many experiences do you 
have.  He said twenty-seven (27) years.  I have thirty-three (33) 
years experience in the protection of the lake environment.  We have 
worked together to found the FAPEL with Tony Lesauteur.  You perhaps 
knew that person.  We have sixty (60) years combined.  

      And the lake is very, very fragile, because there is a point of 
no return.  When you start harming the lake environment, when you make 
it age through (inaudible), it is nothing that you can reverse, this 
damage.  And that's why the Lake Orford is very important.  

      And when we look at the promoter's plans for this sector, GM-3, 
we can see - at some point, I think these are cuts for the - it says 
71/118.  We can see that the route goes right through the south.  It 
goes around the south of the highway.  And where it is indicated 
71/118, we are very, very close to Lake Orford, really far too close, 
as Jean-Claude said.  With a very, very steep slope, it really makes 
no sense when you go to the point where you have to find passages 
other than the existing one.  This has the least impact?  Well, it 
just doesn't make sense.  I just can't believe it.  

      It is not expensive to make such efforts to protect these lakes.  
We are presently trying to make sure that the six (6) lakes that are 
circled on the sheet we have given to you, that eventually there will 
not be any kind of motorboat or motor vehicles on these lakes as we 
have discovered in the study.  The twenty-five percent (25%) of the 
gas in the double time motors are really (inaudible) the lake.  And 
there is another side from Mr. Knowles.  Chris Knowles says it may 
even be three percent (3%).  

      So, you imagine in fragile little lakes less than five (5) 
kilometres square.  We have to protect them.  We must never accept the 
idea that a pipeline can encircle in this way, whether it be the 
Silver Lake - there are no more boats on Silver Lake since this year - 
and Parker Lake.  We are going right in-between the two (2), and we 
are coming very, very close to Lake Orford.  It is absolutely 

      It is all very nice to want to be positive and say that we are 
for development, but when it makes no sense, it makes no sense. 


      Thank you, how far have you got in terms of the elimination of 
motorboats on Lake Stukely? 


      I understand why you are asking me the question.  I can answer 
you very directly. We are further ahead in terms of Lake Bowker and 
Lake Orford.  On Lake Bowker last year, we carried out a non-official 
round of consultation.  We sent a letter to all the waterfront owners.  
There are two hundred and twenty-six (226) who have the right to vote.  
And we also sent a letter to all the clients, because we are for 
democratic management of the water.  

      We are going to participate.  There is going to be a debate in 
the fall concerning water policy.  And what we hope is that we can 
manage these lakes in a democratic way by asking not just the 
waterfront properties, but all the people who get their water from the 
aqueduct, how they want us to protect this lake.  

      We asked the question last year.  And to our great surprise, I 
have already told you that, in Lake Bowker, we were (inaudible) in 
Valcourt learned people said, well, look it, because Bombardier is 
there, they are perhaps going to, but seventy percent (70%) of the 
people said we have to get rid of all the motorboats on the reservoir 
lake. It is like a glass of water.  You have to protect it.  We have 
to protect this lake. 


      If you will allow, Mr. Genest, it is also important to add that 
RAPPEL recommends for these seven (7) lakes in this area, the three 
hundred (300) metre forest band, that there be no agricultural 
activity, no wood cutting, and we hear that people are going to come 
in and dynamite to build a pipeline.  I can tell you that people react 
very, very strongly.  

      We have presented this at the Centre d'Or at Orford last year.  
There were municipalities there, MRC's, and citizens, and everybody 
said it was normal.  People, when you are talking about the pipeline 
project, it is not a guarantee.  It would be out (inaudible), and we 
say that it is unacceptable.  This is especially in the case of sets 
of water which are drinking water.  For us, it is extremely clear that 
it is totally unacceptable for forest areas.  And there is no kind of 
measure which counter the effects that you worry about, either 
revegetation measures or preventive measures.  That doesn't exist. 

      I am glad that you have raised this issue, Mr. Chairman, 
because, in the documents that we have consulted, the information that 
we have is that it has been inspired by what the Quebec Ministry of 
Transport is doing.  They are really taking extreme cautions at costs 
which seem to be astronomical for a company which is building a 

      This is the problem.  You can protect the aquatic resource by, 
for instance, building a bridge.  The day we build, please make sure 
that we can ensure that there is not even a grain of sand which is put 
into the bottom of a river, but it is extremely costly in the short 
term, but the long-term social cost, this is a choice we have made, 
that it is profitable in the end.  

      I am not sure.  The information that we have, if we look at what 
has been presented to us, both in terms of the inventories and 
especially the techniques, I didn't see anywhere any kind of 
stabilization techniques.  I'm glad that you brought this up.  

      When you think that we asked our twenty thousand (20,000) 
waterfront owners to restabilize, revegetate their banks, I haven't 
seen anything of this sort in terms of the documentation coming from 
the promoters.  It is technically possible.  Is it desirable?  And 
there is a lot of people who have spoken or testified today.  It 
allows us to seriously question whether the company intends to do 

      A last comment, the Quebec Ministry of Transport, in order to 
protect our bodies of water for several years now, for at least ten 
(10) or fifteen (15) years, has issued a very important directive to 
the effect that we cannot build or repair a road which is less than 
twenty-five (25) metres from the lake.  

      So, I haven't taken all the measurements, but when I look at the 
little map here, and I can see that you indicate from 71/78, I don't 
know if there is seventy-five (75) metres between that and the lake, 
but it is very, very close.  How come the Quebec Ministry of Transport 
doesn't allow us to rebuild a highway according to today's standards, 
and yet are prepared to let a pipeline go through the same area?  It 
is absolutely crazy. 


      Thank you very much, Mr. Cloutier had a question for you. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      It concerns a document which was filed.  You have mentioned the 
protection of the lakes and bodies of waters of the Eastern Township, 
and now we see this map which shows the source of the water supplies 
of the various municipalities.  

      What interests me here is the question of the watersheds.  I 
imagine that the management of the environment you are trying to do is 
in terms of watersheds, sub watersheds and sub sub watersheds.  Do you 
have maps which would indicate where all these watersheds and sub 
watersheds are, and will give the whole dynamic flow of these 
watersheds from one to the other, and the relations that exist between 
them which could indicate to us how fragile these bodies of water are? 


      Yes, Mr. Cloutier, we could file with you a document which 
indicates all the watersheds and sub watersheds, and the proposed 
pipeline would go through the watershed of the Rivière Yamaska and 
park when we are in the Stukely area and part of Lake Orford, but as 
soon as we get to Magog or the Magog County, then we change 
watersheds, and we are part of the watershed of the Rivière St-

      We have a document, and we have maps of that, and we submitted 
to the Minister David Cliche, which we have met on several occasions, 
a proposal which is similar to that of the one for the Chaudière River 
area.  We have even been in contact with Mr. Denis Jean.  Now, we have 
come very close to being recognized as the second region to manage our 
water through watersheds.  So, I can file a map which, I think, will 
respond to your question. 


      And there is a Mississquoi watershed as well.  The head of the 
Parker, Eastman, flows into the Mississquoi, and information about 
this special localization of these basins, which could indicate to us 
all the tributaries and so on.  We will file it with you tomorrow. 

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, Commissioner: 

      Thank you. 


      Mr. Jonathan Ellison.

      Mrs. Monique Eugénie Terral Hermand. 


      Mr. President, good evening, good evening, ladies and gentlemen, 
I'm the owner of a territory in the municipality of Stukely since 
1969.  TQM presented me with a preliminary plan on March 29th.  This 
route goes through the front of my property parallel to the Chemin de 
la Diligence on the portion of my lot 129.  Its incidence causes 
serious prejudice to the market value, the environmental value, the 
wildlife value, and sentimental value of my property, as well as a 
prejudice to my physical health.  Let me explain myself. 

      The damage and loss of the market value, in addition to the 
significant value represented by the face of my land, the front part 
of my land, the loss of my land through a twenty-three (23) metre 
easement and the portion required by TQM and the spaces around lot 140 
would be enclaved between the route of Chemin de la Diligence and the 
right of way, so, a significant loss of my market value. 

      My maple groves and existing trees, plus the land for farming 
that would be crossed by the pipeline would translate into a 
significant loss, a loss of revenue at short, medium and long terms 
due to a lack of surface area, a surface area that cannot be exploited 
and cannot be sold.  

      Clause 3, clause 3.43, and 4.55, clauses 5.3 of the agreement 
and right of ownership issued on January 21 by TQM would accentuate 
the damages and loss of my market value. 

      Environmental damages, with a new corridor with the passage of 
the pipeline, the damages would get more serious in an agricultural, 
faunic, recreational, and touristic resort area near the lake on the 
front side of the Chemin de la Diligence recognized by the MRC of 
Memphremagog and the municipality of Stukely as a scenic route.  The 
above clauses and articles would also accentuate the environmental 

      Faunic damage, my property, all kinds of animals live on my 
territory, and there has been peace and tranquility since we have been 
there.  The above articles and clauses will also accentuate these 
damages to wildlife. 

      Lifestyle and sentimental value, this property for my family 
represents, I have peace and normal quality of life, in addition to 
offering us financial security for me to able to end my days.  We have 
beautified this property since 1969. 

      Physical damage, there are problems raised over the past six (6) 
months by the passage of the pipeline lead me to lose a lot of time 
and energy, and cause all kinds of concerns that are harmful to my 

      With respect to the options, Mr. Chairman, I sent you an entire 
file on July 16th, I'm talking to you, which relates the manipulations 
that TQM has been involved in.  In terms of the options, 126PA 22WG of 
May 14th, 3226VA of June 12th, and 3266PA 23DWG of June 16th filed 
with the BAPE only June 20th, the loss, damages on -environmental loss 
of damage, physical and sentimental damage also applies for all those 
articles mentioned before. 

      Conclusion, all these companies, all these profit-making 
companies associated with such projects, should be required to use 
their existing rights of way rather than forcing owners, land-owing 
taxpayers, to continue transferring a part of their land without their 
consent, part of the land for which they continue paying taxes for 
property that they will no longer be able to exploit or negotiate.  As 
I said, you cannot reproduce the land. 


      Thank you very much, Mme. Terral, your reasons and grounds are 
very clear. They will be taken into consideration by the Commission.  
Mr. Paré has a question for you. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      Mme. Terral, I just want to ask you to specify a little bit more 
when you conclude by saying that all these companies should be 
required to use existing easements.  Should I understand then that if 
the pipeline goes through an existing right of way without expanding 
it, it would be acceptable? 


      Well, they already have rights of way.  It is their right.  It 
is their property.  I cannot forbid anyone from going through their 
property, but I can prevent them from going through my property.  
There, I am defending my property.  They have a right of way.  I have 
nothing against the pipeline, and I'm not against progress, but they 
already have a right of way which goes behind my house, and they want 
to now move it to - I mean I will be surrounded by pipelines.  I mean 
they will be cutting the land, you know, segmenting the land.  There 
are roads, but we need the roads.  Then, they are going to build two 
(2) pipelines.  Why?  That's all.  I am not - I mean let them use the 
existing lines. 

MR. JEAN PARÉ, Commissioner: 

      Thank you. 


      Okay, thank you very much, Mrs. Terral, and watch out for your 
health anyway. 


      Well, I would like all the documents and all the correspondence 
to be attached. I sent it to the National Energy Board, to the 
Ministry of Agriculture, to the CPTAQ, and so on. 


      Don't worry about it. 


      Thank you, I hope this is the last time I'm coming to see you 
people.  It is not that I don't like to see you, but anyway... 


      Okay, this brings us to the rectification period; Mr. Jacques 
Alain from the Ministry of Environment and Wildlife. 


      Mr. President, Mr. Commissioners, I would like to make some 
rectifications and clarifications on two (2) points that were raised 
in the first brief, that of Mr. Cloutier.  

      First of all, in the analysis of admissibility, I point out an 
eligibility or admissibility analysis is to find out if a particular 
project meets certain requirements.  Now, in terms of the comparative 
analysis of corridors and the comparative analysis of routes, the 
directive says that it should be done within the study zone, and 
that's what the promoter did.  

      However, between Waterloo and Lac d'Argent where there wasn't 
any comparative analysis, the Ministry deemed that the explanations 
given by the promoter were admissible.  So, that's a judgement made on 
that segment in terms of the acceptability of the impact study.  Other 
people may obviously have a different judgement. 

      Now, with respect to details on the crossings of the waterways 
and the inventories on the so-called endangered species, the 
admissibility notice says that a promoter agreed to file subsequently, 
i.e. before the approval of the project.  So, we would have this 
information for the final analysis.  That's it. 


      Thank you very much; Mr. Normand Benoit. 


      Thank you, Mr. Chair, it's just to stipulate that the fire was 
at my place, and the volunteer firefighters from Ayre's Cliff are my 
friends.  I don't want it to be construed as a criticism.  However, 
this allows us to bear in mind that even though it was a new truck, 
there are, you know, breakdowns, and unexpected things can happen 
anytime anywhere. 


      Thank you; Mr. Jean Trudelle. 


      Mr. President, Mr. Commissioners, just a correction, first of 
all, on a comment that I made yesterday on the width of the clearing 
that had to be cleared, the width could be reduced up to eighteen 
(18), if it is along an existing right of way, and it is twenty-three 
(23) metres when it is not along an existing right of way, as 
described in a document we filed in the first part.  So, I just wanted 
to indicate the width of eighteen (18) metres. 

      Another correction with respect to the various meetings that we 
had with the MRC of Memphremagog, the various meetings enumerated by 
the representatives of the MRC were intended to plan a route of the 
least impact.  So, at that point, the route hadn't been determined, 
and the purpose of the meeting was to determine a route.  

      I should also point out that there was indeed a meeting with the 
representatives of the MRC Memphremagog between the two (2) parts of 
the hearings, unlike what was mentioned.  This meeting was held on 
July 22nd to find a possible solution, and as indicated in a written 
communication we sent to the secretary of the BAPE. 

      Now, with respect to an alternative for Magnola, I should point 
out that the extension, the project to extend the pipeline to PNGTS, 
would replace an eventual compressor that would be needed to increase 
the capacity of the GMI system.  It doesn't change the conduit that 
connected to the plant itself.  

      So, the fact that there is a conduit between Windsor and 
Asbestos is not an alternative for the connection of Magnola.  The 
PNGTS project is there to increase the capacity of the transmission 
system, and that would replace the eventual - that would eventually 
replace the compressor. 

      It was also mentioned that the Asbestos region could be served 
by Kingsey Fall. Well, it cannot be, because it is a zone that cannot 
support the demand of gas from Magnola or GM Asbestos.  It doesn't 
have the capacity.  If so, we would have chosen that option. 

      Also, we never mentioned that there had never been any breakdown 
or any deficiency in any pipeline in Canada.  We only talked about the 
situations in Quebec, that there had been none.  

      So, those are my comments. 


      Mr. Trudelle, apart from the meeting held with the MRC, was 
there any other meeting planned? 


      No, that was the only meeting we had between the hearing 


      Now, as for Magnola, if I understand correctly, if the project 
is not approved, you will not be able to provide the gas required for 
the project.  Is that... 


      Well, the alternative solution, if there was no connection 
between the TQM system and the existing system in the Eastern 
Townships, the alternative would be to place a compressor somewhere 
that would increase the capacity of the system in the Eastern 
Townships.  That requires that we file with the National Gas Board, 
and we said that what we are proposing is the best.  The compressor 
would be the best alternative.  A twenty (20) million dollar 
compressor would be the alternative, unlike the cost of connection 
that would be less.  It would be the alternative.  It is not the 


      Yes, Mr. Miller, you have a rectification?  Mr. Miller, you have 
a rectification? 


      Yes, Mr. Commissioner, I have two (2) corrections.  One is Mr. 
Flumerfelt this evening said that PNGTS, and I quote: 

      "That that route change was very seriously considered with 
regards to markets and the environment". 

      And yet I know, at East Hereford, if you consult the verbatim, 
that Mr. Flumerfelt said that the environmental improvements were 
found by accident.  So, I don't know which is true, whether they were 
by accident or whether they were by very careful consideration, but 
they cannot be by both. 

      Also, I would like to make a correction to the statement Mr. 
Trudelle just made a moment ago.  If you consult the verbatim of the 
25th of June here in Magog, you will find the words Mr. Trudelle used, 
and it is very clear that he did not exclude the rest of Canada as far 
as his statements concerning the safety record of Trans Canada 
Pipelines. It is quite clear. 


      I would like to table the text that we found in the verbatim. 


      That's it, okay.  Now, this brings us to the end of our work for 
today.  The Commission will continue its work tomorrow evening at 
seven o'clock (7:00) right here in this room.  Good night. 


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


                         ANNAGRET RINALDI
                         Official Court Reporter

Go Top

Go to BAPE Verbatims Index

Go to Pipeline Blues Index