Bureau d'Audiences Publiques sur l'Environnement

Séance tenue le 5 août 1997

BUREAU D'AUDIENCES PUBLIQUES
SUR L'ENVIRONNEMENT

ÉTAIENT PRÉSENTS: M. CAMILLE GENEST, président
M. CHARLES CLOUTIER, commissaire
M. JEAN PARÉ, commissaire

AUDIENCE PUBLIQUE
SUR LE PROJET DE PROJET DE PROLONGEMENT
DU GAZODUC TQM
DE LACHENAIE a EAST HEREFORD
***************************
ENGLISH VERSION

***************************
DEUXIèME PARTIE
VOLUME 4
Séance tenue le 5 août 1997, à19 h
Pub de la Gorge
145, rue Michaud
Coaticook

TABLE DES MATIèRES

SÉANCE DU 5 août 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
MOT DU PRÉSIDENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
LE PRÉSIDENT: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

PRÉSENTATION DES MÉMOIRES:
CAROLINE ROY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
NICOLE PLANTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
ROLLANDE GUILLETTE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
ROBERT BOISVERT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
LE GROUP DES FRONTIERES LUCIE ROY-ALAIN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
RONALD OWEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51
JEAN-GUY TREMBLAY and JACINTHE BAILLARGEON JEAN-GUY TREMBLAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58
JACQUES LESSARD (FOR MR. PAULIN GUIRION). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64

DROIT DE RECTIFICATION:
JEAN TRUDELLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73

SOIRÉE DU 5 AOûT 1997
MOT DU PRÉSIDENT

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, The Commission is resuming
its work, beginning with a presentation by Mrs. Caroline Roy.

MRS. CAROLINE ROY:

Good evening, Mr. Commissioners. I am extremely pleased to be
able to talk to you openly and freely about my opinions regarding this
TQM pipeline project. I live in East Hereford. I have been there for
the past four years, and I lived my infancy in the countryside. I am a
mother of a little boy of 14 months and I want to offer him the same
chances that I had, i.e. growing up close to nature.

The countryside is not just the sounds of birds. It's also a
place where it's nice to live, where you can live in quiet, peace and
safety. I can tell you that if they set up a pipeline here my plans to
buy a house in East Hereford would be put on the back burner. I feel
it doesn't make sense that a project that is so risky should come and
disturb our peace and tranquillity, and disturb a good portion of our
nature for the profit of a company and for the benefit of our
neighbours in the United States. We don't need this in East Hereford.
On the contrary.

In the municipality this project could appear enriching, but is
it really worth its weight in gold when you think about all the
responsibilities that go with it, and that would only increase. What
would be the annual costs of the emergency plans, the additional
equipment, the communication plan, the probable increase in the rate
for fire fighters, and all other the costs that have not been thought
about; all sorts of repercussions.

If you allow this pipeline to be installed it is our children
and the future generations that will pay the price for decisions that
are taken too quickly, without thinking about the future. We
shouldn't forget that as the pipeline ages the problems will increase.
Lands would lose their value, and who is there is tell us that our
insurance is not going to go up?

In addition, let's not forget that we will be assuming
irreplaceable losses, loved ones, memories and other goods resulting
from the damage that could be caused from this pipeline, which I think
can explode at any time. The problem is not just to know that this
project is going on, what will happen when it is actually in place,
particularly since we are so far from the emergency services in case
of a disaster.

The fact that we are so far from health services will only
extend the suffering of people who are injured and help would be very
late coming because of the distance to be covered. We are one hour
and 15 minutes from the first hospital centre that could provide
appropriate care in this kind of emergency, not to talk of the time
that it takes to wait for the ambulance assistance to arrive. We are
three hours away from a hospital centre that would treat people with
serious burns.

Knowing all the risks and problems related to the pipeline, is
it logical to have this going through our area to provide natural gas
to the United States? Why would the population of Vermont refuse this
project because of their wetlands? We also have hundreds of areas of
wetlands, why would we accept this project? Are we more stupid than
them or simply less informed? Are we really forced to look at the
problems and all the risks of vandalism that would go with this and
the setting up of an emergency plan and perpetually adapting it? Do we
really need all these headaches?

I am all for development, but for sustainable development. A
risky project that could only get worse with time does not interest me
at all. The TQM pipeline can go elsewhere because there is already a
right-of-way that has been here since 1941, from Montreal all the way
to Portland directly. Let them go next to this, let them use this
existing right-of-way and not disturb our tranquillity. We are a
small municipality of 325 people who would have to virtually carry a
very heavy burden that we don't want. We will defend our rights until
the end against these types of projects.

Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, thank you for listening to me, and
I am counting on you to prevent this pipeline from being installed in
the beautiful Eastern Townships.

Thank you very much, Mrs. Roy. If I understand correctly, you
are against the project?

MRS. CAROLINE ROY:

And you expressed it with a lot of conviction. Tell me, what
would prevent you from buying a house in East Hereford? I mean, I
imagine that the house that you are going to buy in East Hereford will
not be close to the proposed pipeline?

MRS. CAROLINE ROY:

Well, first of all, because it takes away my tranquillity if the
pipeline is there. Right now, I am in an apartment and I am not going
to buy a house in East Hereford. I am not going to buy a house near
something which could disrupt our safety, and the pipeline disrupts my
safety, that's for sure. I am not going to buy a house near a volcano
that is dormant for the time being, but who knows, maybe it would
explode one day, and we know that there have been accidents with
pipelines. There could be accidents. Even if my house is not next to
it, it could still affect me and that's why.

So it is the fear of an accident that would prevent you from
buying a house anywhere in East Hereford?

MRS. CAROLINE ROY:

Yes, and also since I am in East Hereford, if an accident
occurs, as I told you, my insurance for my house, there is nothing to
tell me that my insurance is not going to go up. Look at Lac St-Jean,
they had a natural disaster, but now it's impossible to get insurance
over there, and if we have a problem with the pipeline, it's not TQM
that is going to pay for insurance.

You say that you are in support of development, but only
sustainable development. Now, you know that in statements coming out
of the real convention dealing with sustainable development, we talked
about gas as being a transitional energy that is not as damaging as
heavy hydrocarbons. Now, if sustainable development is presented as a
form of development that takes into account the economic, social and
community needs, the cultural aspects, the environment, and so on,
don't you believe that such a project, depending on the methods used,
and the practices and the approaches, could constitute sustainable
development?

MRS. CAROLINE ROY:

Well, that's a very long question. What I wanted to say, and
what I wrote, I will try to answer you the best I can. I don't know if
it answers your question, but anyway, natural gas, obviously, is
something that is sustainable, but what is there to tell us that they
are not going to cut hundreds of acres of our land, our forest, to set
up their pipeline, which is something good, but two, three, five years
from now, they are not going to decide that, that's it, we are no
longer going through there. We did all this for nothing. We will wind
up with holes in our forests, the pipes will remain there and nothing
else would happen. That's what I mean.

THE CHAIRMAN:
Thank you very much. Mr. Paré?

MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):
No questions.

Mrs. Roy, thank you very much for your testimony.

Mrs. Nicole Plante.

MRS. NICOLE PLANTE:

Good evening, gentlemen. I am a co-owner of a land located in
Stuckley South. My address is 565, Chemin de la Diligence. This land
was given by our ancestors who named this road that goes from Montreal
to Sherbrooke. The diversity of the wildlife and the panoramic view
allowed us to purchase this land from my father-in-law in 1977. This
dream area allows us to get in contact with the nature and to hook up
with our ancestors, and, in addition, my family and I hope to set
ourselves up there permanently soon so that we can take advantage of
nature.

Now, with respect to the project, the extension of the TQM
Pipeline to PNGTS goes through my property 211, in Stuckley. This
would be the fourth servitude going through our land. Hydro-Québec
right now is trying to set up a fifth servitude. All the servitudes
have negative impacts on our environment.

My opinion on the project, as a whole, I disagree completely
with this project for various reasons. With respect to the
information and consultation, since this project started, the
developer has announced that there has been information and
consultation during our open houses or information sessions held in
different areas. I attended information sessions in Roussin, Magog,
and different hearings of the BAPE, and each time the answers were
different, so you had to attend several meetings to see how their
answers were developing or to see the absence of answers.

In the second document, Annex 2, the Ministry says that
consulting the public is a contribution that is more and more
important to the process of environmental development. You have to
take into account the opinions of the public, particularly if the
project has any impact on the environment, any human impact. It is
important that the citizens know their community concretely. We could
also use preliminary surveys and opinion polls, or organizing formal
or informal meetings.

Yes, the developer did the minimum by organizing information
sessions from the information contained in the notice of the
project.There is a major difference between information and
consultation. The dictionary says that information is a series of
information. Consultation is talking to someone to get their opinion.

The information, what we got from Roussin and Magog, there was
no consultation. The developer explained all kinds of things, and with
their representatives they answered questions; all this process is
information and not consultation. The developer never consulted us on
the line, the developer never asked us to fill out a survey or to
answer any poll with respect to the environment and the quality of
life, the wildlife and so on.The developer never asked us to talk
about the negative impacts of the passage of the pipeline, of the
first pipeline, that of Gaz Métropolitain.

The developer never asked us for permission to do any land
agreements on our properties. They never asked for our permission to
do survey work on our lands, yet the impact study is a planning
instrument. That is what it says in the documents and we can consult
it. It requires that environmental concerns be taken into account at
every stage of the project, from its design to its operation.

According to the requirements of the government or Ministry,
Volume II, Appendix A, all impact studies that are scientific should
meet the requirements of the Ministry and the government with respect
to the project analysis, consultation of the public, and decision
making.

By doing the minimum the developer did not consult the community
as fairly as possible. The natural environment and the human
environment will be seriously affected by this project. I believe
that the developer lacked respect, did not deal with the owners
respectfully. It did not even take the time to contact us, those who
will most affected with the passage of a pipeline. They did not talk
about the non-negligible impacts. There was no negotiations with...
They consulted other organizations that don't really feel the direct
impact. We believe that the human beings are right at the bottom of
the chain value for the developer.

.3.2; that's why I sent a summary to the BAPE. Time is money.
As an owner, I have been pushed for time. Public hearings were asked
by the owners and the developer himself. Why do they allow such a
short time? Why did the BAPE provide the minimum time between the
first and second portion of public hearings.

This precipitation favours the developer who has all the
resources to get organized, to get their project going through. The
owners have suffered in this because they need time to get organized,
to find resource persons, to consult the documents, and while doing
this they can't get on with their regular lives.

So time is money and the developer has, on the one hand, all the
support and the financial resources, and the owners, on the other
hand, have their own concerns too. One servitude leads to another, and
the developer has said several times that the lines going through us
will go through Stuckley South on the pretext that they already had
another servitude.

In the past the owners allowed for a servitude to go through
their territories for the benefit of their entire community. This
means that all through their lives, they have to be penalized for
these donations. Today, because there is one or more servitudes on
their property, they are forced to accept other servitudes. Don't you
believe that there should be an end to all this?

Right now most owners don't have any more land to give. Aren't
there any conditions for limiting the servitudes on lands? It means
that over time companies can take up part of our territory on the
pretext that it is next to another servitude. Will there be an end
only when I no longer have any land on my territory? As a land owner
who has several servitudes on my land, I feel as if I am condemned.

According to the Act concerning the natural energy board, the
developer would be able to go through my territory whenever they want
to. Is the government aware of the cumulative effects of the presence
of several servitudes on our properties?

My concerns, with respect to the impacts or components of the
project in Volume II of the appended document 4.2, it says that
evaluation of the importance of an impact -
it talks about the degree of change incurred by the environmental
components. Hence the more an impact is important, the more it is
significant.

Now, as an owner, I was never consulted and my neighbours were
not consulted. In Volume II appended, the owner should be consulted
and they should give him an evaluation of the impact of the variant.
They had to show the various variants and proposed measures to
mitigate the negative impacts or to maximize the positive impacts of
their project. The developers told us often in public hearings that
there was only one line, and no other option with respect to any other
servitudes.

The developer did a study, in the BAPE reports, a text from Mr.
Jean Delisle, on the weekend, the developer shows that they didn't
follow the process of the impact evaluation.

The flora: We know that at the Magog sessions, Mr. Delisle... at the
BAPE session, the developer changed their version, and at the request
of the owner that the maple sugar bushes would be maintained.

When we purchased our land in 1977, not 1995, 1977, we purchased
a land that was wooded. There is a verse from Ezekiel that says:
Ezekiel said he would plant a branch and it would grow into a tree and
produce all kinds of woods. All kinds of birds would live around
here, and money would never replace our forest.

There is a natural environment. I am only a visitor and we have
seen a lot of damage done to the Virginia deer. We are cutting away
the forest. My father-in-law, who lives in Stuckley despite all the
forest work, has never a chance to see certain animals. I have seen
them. These animals need a good forest cover in order to live.
It is absolutely unfair that this pipeline is going to through
Stuckley on the pretext that there are already rights-of-way. How is
the promoter going to evaluate this loss of the enjoyment of our
environment and our quality of life?

Our heritage: What are we going to leave to our children as a
heritage? Is our property going to find its forest totally amputated
and cut away? Are all the animals going to disappear from our land
because of all these rights-of-way going through? What will the
reaction of my children be when the results of this project will be
known? Will they understand why, despite our refusal, we are forced to
give up part of our land.

Quality of life: The passage of a right-of-way will lead to
many undesirable effects. It will become a busy highway. People are
going to come often, they're going to come on their snowmobiles to
hunt, and the passage of the natural gas pipeline will lead to many
prejudices, an aesthetic prejudice.

A corridor in the forest is a scandal, and the winter is much
colder when you work close to these corridors, and the wind has a much
greater impact and we are going to have to go elsewhere.

In the winter, when we cut wood, the people who have, in fact,
cut through these rights-of-ways and put up their fences have broken
our snowmobile routes and made it much more difficult for us to cut
wood.

Who is going to take the time to replace a fence which has
been broken or to redo a road? Gaz Métropolitain has part of the
responsibility for this. It's Gaz Métropolitain who has made these
openings, and it's Gaz Métropolitain who has allowed these intruders
to come onto our property, and with another right-of-way the property
is going to simply become one big highway.

We want it to be quiet, that's why we moved there ,and these
servitudes cause us great prejudice and stress. We have signs up on
our fences and people rip them off and go through anyway. I would not
be surprised to hear that even the employees of TQM give them the bad
example by going over our property without permission. How do you want
people to respect our property when a big company doesn't respect our
property?

Security: I would say it is often dangerous in the hunting
season to walk on our property. We meet so many non authorized
hunters, which is extremely upsetting for us. People use the Gaz
Métropolitain's servitude, they are looking for anything that moves,
which means that we see the results of these hunters who kill all
kinds of small game. That means our children can't play in the woods
during this period. During the winter we snowmobile in our own forest
paths, and it is dangerous, and we meet intruders who are going at 100
kilometres an hour.

Who is going to make sure that my rights of ownership are
protected? Who is going to ensure our safety? All this prejudice
means that we can't enjoy our property fully.Less than 100 metres away
from our property, is it going to be a risk zone? And if we look at
the emergency plan of Gaz Métropolitain, it is far from reassuring.
My father-in-law, when he goes to Magog, he is going to bring back a
letter from the municipality confirming what I said, that the only
emergency measures are a little sheet of paper which is in the mayor's
filing cabinet.

Gaz Métropolitain has the impression - we have the impression
that they totally scorn for our safety. There is not even an emergency
number. The numbers which are on the pipeline posts is the same one
that you can find in the telephone book. It's a number that you have
to do when you want to dig; you have to make two different calls when
you want to get an emergency number, you have to have a very recent
telephone, because if you have an ordinary rotary dial you couldn't
even enter into communication with this so-called emergency service.
Perhaps it would be good to resolve this problem, because there is a
lot of people around here who have the old rotary systems and they
can't even get any kind of services.

At Stuckley people have little information about this emergency
plan. If you want other information you can check this out with the
fire chief. Several people in the village, especially new people, are
not even aware that there is a pipeline going through right near to
us. For about 15 years Gaz Métropolitain kept us totally ignorant
about all this technology, there was no valid emergency plan which was
set up.

This company has put our lives in danger. We were totally
ignorant of all the risks that we were running, and the promoter,
which was forced to hold an information evening, always said that they
didn't have any kind of 'instincteur' to their knowledge. The
different documents that we consulted concerning the pipeline's
information, which is worrisome, there seems to be another version of
facts which is in the document which we saw at Roussin.

For us, we feel that we are like second-class citizens in
Quebec. This TQM and Gaz Métropolitain, who owns 50% of this company,
do they have any kind of follow-up for the emergency provisions? In
addition, TQM have often said that they are going to plan and set up
emergency measures for the municipalities, but are these assisted
measures are going to be financed for everybody by TQM?

I am really worried for my family and my neighbours' drinking
water. In Stuckley, the promoter is supposed to make sure that there
is... going to dynamite on the width of the whole route. This has
already been done in 1983, and this led to an important reduction of
the water table. 10% for the non-users was imposed for people like I,
who don't use the viaduct.

Throughout the whole length of the passage in Stuckley, there is
going to be dynamiting, and this dynamiting is going a major danger,
both for drinking water and for hazards. Why do they dynamite so
close to the Gaz Métropolitain right-of-way? Why don't they use a
right-of-way where there would be less impact?

The lowering of the value of our properties: For the resale
value, we are going to lose a great deal because this right-of-way
that we are forced to concede, it will certainly have a dramatic
effect in terms of reducing it. We learned at the BAPE hearings that
there is going to be a 30-metre margin on each side of the right-of-
way which as well will be surrendered to the promoter. So I am totally
at the mercy of the decisions of the promoter.

The promoter, on this 23 metres, I don't think that they should
have anything to say about all the rest of my property. As well in
terms of certain of the urban plans, we apply a 100 metre security
zone, which means that within the sub zone, there will be nothing, you
won't be allowed to do anything, so this land is going to be an
important impact in terms of the municipal evaluation. In addition,
TQM doesn't take into account, in terms of its indemnization, the
future needs of the territory.

Suggestions/recommendations: When we consider the interest and
the values of all the people involved, the impact study tries to
consider the interest and the value of the individuals or groups and
the collectivities in terms of listening to their opinion, their
reactions and their main concerns. Concerning this, they must take
into account the way in which the various stakeholders were involved
and the planning process. Notably, talking about the results of the
consultation, given that there hasn't been any real consultation,
there isn't very much said was said in Stuckley, the municipality who
represents the group refuses the passage of TQM on its territory. All
the owners, as well, refuse that the TQM pipeline be put through.

Why are they refusing this? What motivates them in their
refusal? It is not just a question of money. In all the documents that
came from the promoter they are already talking about a negligible
impact. If it was so negligible, we wouldn't have this kind of
categorical reflex refusal on the part of all the people.

The promoter could, in fact, use alternate routes. They could
use the first right-of-way, the one from Montreal to Highwater, this
would have no impact on the environment, the flora and the fauna and
human people, men, women and children, because this right-of-way
already goes through a pipeline servitude.

As well, they could use the Northwest Maritime route. This
route goes through to New Brunswick and then goes directly to the U.S.
It is the people in the U.S. that want gas? Well, then they should go
through their territory. The promoter tries to say that they are very
respectful of the environment, of the flora and the fauna and the
human people, men, women and children. The TQM been informed of all
the negative impacts, the permanent impacts, which have been mentioned
during the information evenings and the BAPE hearings.

Have they, for humanitarian reasons, changed their route from
Stuckley-Sud in order to help us to heal the wounds that have already
been caused by the right-of-way that presently exists, in terms of
that has inflicted these kinds of wounds on our property and on the
heritage that we are going to be leaving our children.

THE CHAIRMAN:
Okay, Mrs. Plante. Thank you, you have worked very hard.

MRS. NICOLE PLANTE:
Yes.

This is an impressive brief, and I would like to congratulate
you on your involvement. In fact, you have given your opinion so
clearly. You mention an aspect which is important in terms of our
process here. You mentioned that the citizens know their community.
They are the experts on their community, and you mention even that
there were techniques that could have been used, or which could be
used in cases such as this, such as a preliminary enquiry, an opinion
poll, and you're right, and this is the kind of thing that have been
thought of in terms of the reform of the whole process for coming up
with the environmental impact study, and you have made a very good
distinction between information and consultation.

In these circumstances, if we were to completely overhaul the
way in which this project is being developed, the way in which the
meetings and the hearings are held, how do you think that we can
involve citizens more, because it is always very difficult for people
to really consult? Often we come up with sort of logistic
difficulties. There is difficulties in meeting the real people
involved and getting them involved in the decisions. How would you see
it going?

MRS. NICOLE PLANTE:
The first thing is that I think as a land owner, we have already
had a pipeline since 1983. They could have taken a poll of these
people, somebody who would question these people perhaps. 50% or 30%
of people would have answered, but they would have filled up the
questionnaire and then they would have at least had the beginning of a
valid study on the impacts.

These people are not aware what is happening. There has been no
follow-up done by Gaz Métropolitain. They are not aware of all the
impact there is going to be with the new TQM pipeline, and that's why
we are so reticent to have another one, another pipeline, going
through, and we know that there are going to be other projects as
well. Hydro-Québec is going to have a revolving door project for
energy.

I think the government should buy a half kilometre wide corridor
and have a corridor which is reserved uniquely for all kinds of energy
sources. We bought our land, we have built all by ourselves, with our
own hands, a house made in fieldstone, fieldstone that we have
gathered, and we don't want to have to destroy all this, but if the
Hydro-Québec plan is going to go through, we won't have any choice.

Where is the line going to go? Once again, it is going to go
through our property. The government should buy a corridor of land.
Everyone in Québec and all the rights-of-ways go through the same
place. I think at some point, if we want to look at the future here,
what is important is we shouldn't put all the property owners through
this.

As I explained in my introduction, people have made gifts, they
have given electricity. They have allowed people to have electricity
in 1946 and 1960 in the Stuckley region, and we are going to be
penalized for all our lives because people were generous and gave
these rights-of-way to Hydro-Québec. Are they going to take
everything away? They are going to strip away all the reasons for
which I bought this land.

There are neighbours behind me who are putting their land up for
sale because they say there is no point, they are always going to be
putting through these rights-of-way. I think they should have asked us
questions, in a questionnaire or poll, and if these people are really
conscious of the environmental questions, they would have seen there
is such enormous permanent impact that they have to rethink the
project.

If they really care about people's reaction they have to find
another corridor, another route somewhere else. But given they
haven't done this study... and they always said that at Stuckley - it
was repeated constantly - we are going through Stuckley because there
is already a right-of-way there, and I can't accept that. I am not
going to swallow that. What is going to happen when they are going to
be in my backyard and I am going to be 95 years old, and I will have
to hobble around with a cane to protest against this.

You also talked about the impact study, and you mention, and
this is very true, that this is a planning instrument. You have also
mentioned that this impact study has weaknesses in terms of the
presentation of the portrait of a human community and a natural
environment. What, for you, are the main weaknesses? I know that you
have pointed out a certain number in the first part of your brief and
we wanted to summarize what you say.

MRS. NICOLE PLANTE:

You know, when we go around and do forest testing, you know, in
secret, we do that very fast because we don't want everybody to notice
that there is an [inaudible}. Our animals - My son was walking through
the woods today - he has just turned 15 and he makes $4 a cord of
wood, and we want to encourage him and we give him the equipment, and
he said, 'I saw two prey birds today', but when there is no longer any
kind of dense forest, there won't be any more of these birds of prey,
such as owls, and so on, and there won't be any more deer.

Have you already seen a pékan in your woods? No, most people in
here in the Eastern Townships have never seen them, because they are
just starting once again to come back.

So animals are just very slowly coming back. The pékans are in
our woods, and I saw two of them, the way they were playing together
like squirrels can play, yet people say there is not going to be an
impact. My husband is going to come and present a brief shortly, and
he has a lot to say about fauna, but for us, the deer are very
important. We are hunters perhaps, but we feed them over the lawn, the
deer.

Every week, we take carrots out, especially in the winters which
are particularly hard winters.

You have mentioned, as well, and you are right that the BAPE
have given only the minimum period of time between the first and
second part of the process, but the BAPE itself, you know, is
powerless because it gets its mandate from the Minister of the
Environment and Fauna, and the mandates always have a date at the
beginning and a date for the end.

MRS. NICOLE PLANTE:

But there is a maximum which can be granted?

There is a minimum, but the mandate of our commission had a date
that it had to start and a date that it had to finish, so we have no
control over that.

MRS. NICOLE PLANTE:

But I hope you are going to make the appropriate comments to
your bosses?

We have already pointed out this difficulty and its problems,
we hope it won't happen again. You have mentioned the problem of the
multiple servitudes, you just talked about it. That is a problem, and
we are looking for references in documents, looking at the experiences
of other people, experiments that have been tried elsewhere. We
haven't found a lot, studies that have been done, but we are aware of
the problems that this may cause for the people concerned, notably in
terms of the cumulative effects for the land owners who have multiple
servitudes going through their land. Mr. Paré?

MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):

Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Plante, amongst the several themes
which you have dealt with in your brief, which covered a lot of
different aspects, so it is a whole question of the [inaudible]
infrastructures and the project as presented. It is based on the idea
of an additional right-of-way, and you say that it is simply going to
worsen a problem which already exists. However, at the end of your
brief you suggest that we examine more closely the idea of the
Montreal/Highwater route, and you say this would have no impact on the
environment, the flora, and the fauna, because this route already goes
through a pipeline servitude.

If the new pipeline was to go through the existing right-of-way,
without any kind of enlargement, therefore no worsening of the present
situation, would it be more acceptable for you?

MRS. NICOLE PLANTE:

Surely, but ...

MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):

Just talking about the aspect of the enlarging, just in terms of
the enlarging of the right-of-way.

MRS. NICOLE PLANTE:

But you asked me to choose, do you want not in your backyard or
it's dangerous as a fire and the risk of an explosion. You are
putting me in this kind of dilemma. It is dangerous, there are risks,
you know, with a pipeline.

MR. JEAN PARÉ (Commissioner):

Yes, I share your feeling about that.

MRS. NICOLE PLANTE:

Whether it goes through the same route or beside it, this
pipeline is dangerous. I don't understand why Metropolitain Gas has
never set up an emergency plan beforehand. For 15 years they have let
us live in a dangerous situation and now they are going to put another
pipeline through. Whether it is right beside it or going on top of
it, there is danger enough, it is going to become a double danger if
they put through another pipeline.

There are other alternatives. Why don't they put the route
through elsewhere? Is it because they haven't done their work properly
elsewhere?

MR. JEAN PARÉ (Commissioner):

You are aware that elsewhere - if the danger exists, it is going
to exist elsewhere.

MRS. NICOLE PLANTE:

For instance, the Highwater route, at some point there aren't
going to be any pipeline, why don't they go through the same bunker as
the natural gas in Highwater. Soon they won't have any more heavy oil
service so it is going to be empty, why don't they let the gas go
through that pipeline? It's going to be empty, it is going to be
available for that. That's the kind of alternative.

MR. JEAN PARÉ (Commissioner):

But on what basis can you state that it won't be used any more
for transportation?

MRS. NICOLE PLANTE:

In the documents that have been filed, people talked about that
at the hearings, that it's not going to be used, at various places, at
Magog and ...

MR. JEAN PARÉ (Commissioner):

That we wouldn't use the pipeline any more?

MRS. NICOLE PLANTE:

Yes. That in a few years they are not going to use it any more
for heavy oil, so it is going to be empty, this pipe. It wouldn't
have any impact then, on the people or on the environment. If the
pipes are empty, let's just use them for something else then at that
point. Does that respond to your question?

MR. JEAN PARÉ (Commissioner):

Oh yes, yes, it answers my question. Thank you.

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):

Good evening, Madame. You mention here that you already have
four rights-of-way going over your land.

MRS. NICOLE PLANTE:

Three rights-of-way, and presently Hydro-Québec is starting the
process, doing the land surveying, and they are going to apply for a
fourth right-of-way, and if this pipeline goes through, then it is
going to be the fifth, because there are two, in fact, who are trying
to get the servitude at the same time.

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):

So if we set aside the two servitudes which are in the process
of trying to be planned or negotiated, the others are the pipeline as
well, natural gas ...

MRS. NICOLE PLANTE:

There are two Hydro-Québec rights-of-way, one which goes through
the width and the other which cuts through a corner of our land, and
the one that goes through the width of our land is the pipeline, as
well.

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):

And you are owner of your land since 1977. When you bought your
property, were these rights-of-way already on it?

MRS. NICOLE PLANTE:

The two Hydro-Québec rights-of-way were already on it.

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):
So you have lived ...

MRS. NICOLE PLANTE:

But you know, in the beginning there weren't a lot of intruders
that came with these right-of-way because the openings that were made
were much narrower. Hydro-Québec often came in the 1940's, 1950's,
1960's. They would simply plant their posts and they wouldn't level
the land, whereas Gaz Metropolitain have made it like a public ride
and that gives access, that gives really the impression that it is an
autoroute, that there is a highway going there.

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):

What I wanted to know if you were an owner of your land when the
Gaz Métropolitain pipeline was constructed?

MRS. NICOLE PLANTE:

Yes, and when they came, Gaz Métropolitain, we really didn't
have any choice. We didn't have any information at that time, and they
said, 'If you don't like it, go to court.'

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):

So did you go to court?

MRS. NICOLE PLANTE:

No, no, we didn't go to court, we signed.

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):

You signed an agreement for a perpetual right-of-way in good
faith with the promoters?

MRS. NICOLE PLANTE:

Yes, but he had never talked to us about the risks.

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):

Okay, but that took place in the 1980's, in 1983, so at that
time...

MRS. NICOLE PLANTE:

The knowledge that we had at that time and the knowledge that we
have today is very different. This information has evolved. You have
to put that in the context; you have to look at that in the context of
what we knew in 1983, but now that we have had the experience of one
pipeline, we don't want a second one.

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):

MRS. NICOLE PLANTE:

Yes, because now we have more knowledge, more information about
it and we want to examine the question more thoroughly.

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):

The question of the cumulative effect of having several rights-
of-way going through your land, that is certainly a concern for The
Commission. There is no easy answer as to know how many is the limit;
is three the magic figure, is four the magic figure, where do you draw
the line?

The Commission at this time don't have any set ideas or answers,
and there is nothing that really exists elsewhere which would help us
determine where you have to draw the line, what the limit should be,
but the criteria of localization means that the people who have a
right-of-way on their land, the criteria for locating a pipeline using
this study conclude that the pipeline should be located in the right-
of-way corridor, so your feeling of powerlessness may simply flow from
the fact that these criteria all seem to point towards you.

MRS. NICOLE PLANTE:

Yes, but who is going to help us, as land owners faced with this
problem?

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):

I think The Commission is going to study the situation. It is
going to look at it very attentively, but at the present time we are
in a period of reflection, we are trying to think through these
issues.

MRS. NICOLE PLANTE:

Mrs. Plante, when you talked about the technological problems,
you talked about peoples' worries concerning explosions and gas leaks,
and so on, and when you indicated that the emergency plan for the
existing pipeline is in the filing cabinet at the mayor's office?

MRS. NICOLE PLANTE:
I asked the question at the last meeting, not the one on Monday,
but the one before that, the secretary said, 'Oh, it is in the filing
cabinet', and the mayor's office, you know, closes every day at four
o'clock and it is closed all weekend.

Who is the person who holds that document?

MRS. NICOLE PLANTE:

Well, I asked that question yesterday. We went to a meeting and
we asked the question of the present mayor, who was there, who was
present at the meeting, and they don't have any emergency measures.
They had information concerning the distribution, because at one point
apparently, when the pipeline was put through in 1982, then afterwards
they came through for the distribution in certain zones and they
needed information, but there are no emergency measures really as
such.

In Waterloo, the firemen don't have any emergency measures, it's
only on distribution that they, in fact, have given any kind of
information. So if ever there was a problem, there was an explosion,
frankly it would be very bad.

But, you know, this information is fairly critical in Quebec.
The big hospitals who have an emergency plan, often they are in an
office tucked away behind the filing cabinet. There are never any
practices carried out, no resources are put in, so if a disaster
occurred, frankly people would not know what to do. but you have heard
Mr. St-Laurent of behalf of TQM that it is going to be different in
this project.

MRS. NICOLE PLANTE:

But this company TQM, Mr. Trudelle, he is part of Gaz
Métropolitain, how come he left us for 15 years without any kind of
valid emergency measures.

That's a good question.

MRS. NICOLE PLANTE:

And he is going to be the person in charge of the follow-up of
the other pipeline?

Well, that is a very good question, in fact, concerning the lack
of a valid emergency plan. Well, Mrs. Plante, I thank you once again
for your brief. You have done a very good job, and obviously I retain
that you are against the project, that you would have liked to see
more involvement from the citizens in the project, that you have
concerns concerning the risks, to consider their importance, they're
serious risks, an that you propose an alternative route. Okay. Thank
you.
Mrs. Rollande Guillette.

MRS. ROLLANDE GUILLETTE:

Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Commissioners. My name is
Rollande Guillette, and I'm a resident of the postcard little village
of East Hereford in Coaticook and the Eastern Townships. I am
interested in the whole project of prolonging the pipeline between
Lachenaie and East Hereford in order to supply the PNGTS system for
the North American market, because it seems to me that there are
enormous problems and it's going to threaten my peace, the quiet and
my safety.

I am not against development as such, on the contrary. I
support it and encourage it, but on the condition that it isn't to the
detriment of human beings. I am not prepared to sacrifice the quality
of my life, and I know very well that TQM could, in fact, route their
natural gas elsewhere without having to come and totally upset our
life in the beautiful region of the Eastern Townships.

I am concerned because I don't see any advantage, whatsoever,
for the residents of East Hereford. Our village has a population of
only 325 people, and natural gas will be totally useless to us now and
in the future, and we don't need it.

They are going to come through our village in order to supply
our neighbours to the south, the Americans, and there, our neighbours
in Vermont have refused that the gazoduc go through the state of
Vermont. On the contrary, I am persuaded the carrying out of this
project is going to come and seriously disturb and undermine the
quality of our life. I think we are going to be affected by numerous
and very serious negative impacts.

First of all, from an environmental and visual point of view, we
are going to see our beautiful forest destroyed forever by clear
cutting corridors of 100 feet wide, which will have a terrible impact
on our reputation because we are known in East Hereford for the
totally natural environment, including the quality of our landscape
and our forest.

As well, we are going to be disturbed by low flying helicopters,
and it is important to realize that we are going to suffer from all
the heat and the noise from the distribution centre which will
function 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, which means we will never have
any peace, and this distribution centre is going to have an evacuation
chimney, in case of overload of pressure, which will pollute the pure
air of our beautiful countryside, and it will all smell like rotten
eggs as it happens in the villages which are already afflicted by
this.

Since we have chosen, my husband and I, to live in the country,
it is specifically in order to get away from all these aggressive and
polluting elements. We will no longer be able to get away from any
kind of accidents such as cuts of water, polluted water table, the
risk of accidents, fires and explosions. Considering the risk of
accidents, such as fires and explosions, I am worried because there is
no emergency plan which has been set up.

If I refer to what was said at the hearings on July 2nd, at East
Hereford, I have learned that the MRC is going to be the organization
to which we would have to refer in the case of emergency. I
understand that the case of small isolated agglomerations such as
ours, which have minimal municipal structure and the services that you
can except therefore, the emergency plan which should be, in fact, a
matter of disaster management on operational systems with a command
base, etc., is limited to the theory of citizens helping each other
with volunteer resources, which in our case would be very difficult to
set up with the existing resources, and, in fact, the result will be
that there will be no kind of network.

Added the fact that we are very far away from any kind of
medical resources and a lot of services, I can assure you that I
don't feel reassured whatsoever, because I am convinced that our
safety will be compromised.

In East Hereford, where we live, vandalism is a real epidemic.
Our village has been the victim of this on numerous occasions from
young Americans, and I worry that the distribution centre, which will
be so close to the frontier, will be exposed to this, and, in fact,
will encourage vandalism.

My concern increases when I learned that Canada Customs is going
to cut the frontier position, which means that in East Hereford -
there will only be custom officers there 16 hours a day rather than 24
hours a day.

As for the station in Hereford Road, it will be open only five
hours a day, eight hours a day, and in the high season, seven hours a
day, 16 hours a day, which will facilitate the passage of many young
Americans who presently cannot come to the border because they are on
a black list because of the damages and vandalism that they have so
often come and carried out.

The custom officers know this list very well and they are
extremely vigilant, but when they won't be there any more what's going
to happen? I won't have any kind of peace of mind, that's clear.

As for the economic impacts such as the depreciation of our
land, the difficulty in terms of resale or the increase in the cost of
insurance - that's an additional reason if our property is situated in
a zone which is considered to be a risk zone, which is the case for
us.

The only thing which seems to be an advantage is that our
municipality will receive compensation in the form of school and
municipal taxes for a period of 40 years, but it is important not to
forget that these installations are going to lose value instead of
increasing in value, therefore the taxes are going to go down, year
after year, so that the municipality run the risk, in fact, of being
in a deficit position, if you consider all the responsibilities that
we are going to inherit after the gazoduc has been built and after the
40 years; there will be no more compensation but the responsibilities
will still be there.

When they will have put rights-of-way through our land it is
going to be forever, and we are going to endure them forever, and the
least that I can say is that our heirs will not be proud of us for
having given them this kind of a poison gift. This only argument, a
little fistful of dollars is not worth that we accept this kind of
reduction in the quality of our lives forever.

Concerning all these reasons, concerning also that TQM can
perfectly well carry out this project by using other routes or the
existing pipeline, I am opposed to the project of the extension of the
transport of the natural gas between Lachenaie and the Quebec/New
Hampshire frontier in the Eastern Townships, and I hope that The
Commissioners will recommend that TQM use other routes to put the
pipeline through.

You will find in Appendix, a document concerning the cuts at the
border crossings. Mr. President, and Mr. Commissioners, I hope that I
have drawn your attention, our fate is in your hands, and I count very
much on the fact that you are going to be vigilant in your examination
of the project, and I thank you very much for having listened to me.

Thank you, Madame Guillette. Basically you are reiterating the
arguments raised by the citizens of East Hereford, and I would like to
look at the whole issue of emergency measures and vandalism. I'd like
you to explain it to me a little bit more. You have a paragraph here
on emergency measures, where you say that there is a danger that this
system could be based on a mutual assistance network, yet I believe
that is your method of operation right now in a village the size of
East Hereford, i.e. to depend on voluntarism and mutual assistance.

MRS. ROLLANDE GUILLETTE:

Obviously, since there is only a handful of us, it is still the
same people, it is always the same people who have these
responsibilities. Maybe we don't want to take on more
responsibilities. Who is going to want to volunteer any more? That's
it. Are we going to have time left to do other volunteer work?
That's a problem, we also have to earn a living apart from that.

So the volunteers are exhausted.

MRS. ROLLANDE GUILLETTE:

Now, with respect to vandalism, this is a phenomenon that was
raised yesterday, that The Commission didn't have any idea that it
existed. Now you say that there is a black list that exists among
customs officers. Now these are people close to the border?

MRS. ROLLANDE GUILLETTE:

Yes, they are just on the other side of the border, and they
take pleasure in coming to our neighbourhood on Friday evenings,
because in the United States the bars - you can't get into the bars
before 21, but with us, under 18 you can get in, so they come over and
they do all kinds of bad things, and we've had a lot of vandalism and
that's what happened. A lot of them were put on a black list and they
can no longer cross the border. When the customs officers are no
longer there, what's going to happen?

And you think that the equipment of the metering station could
be vandalized?

MRS. ROLLANDE GUILLETTE:

Yes, because it is very close to the border and it would be open
season for vandals.

Well, based on your past experience, what do they attack?

MRS. ROLLANDE GUILLETTE:

Well, public things. We have a 'relais', a public 'relais', they
damage things, they pull things out, they pull out decorative trees,
destroy them, picnic tables. We had a little fountain with a pump and
they destroyed it. They destroy anything that they can destroy,
anything that they can get their hands on, anything that's public.

MR. JEAN PARÉ (Commissioner):

Yes, you said that your property could be considered to be in a
risky environment. How far would your property be from the line?

MRS. ROLLANDE GUILLETTE:

Less than 100 metres.

MR. JEAN PARÉ (Commissioner):

Do you have any indications that your residential insurance
would increase?

MRS. ROLLANDE GUILLETTE:

Well, it's just logical. When you are in a zone considered a
high risk zone, if an accident occurred I don't think that our
insurance would be the same if we are able to be insured.

MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):

But you haven't checked with your insurance company to see if
this is actually the case?

MRS. ROLLANDE GUILLETTE:

No, I am just deducing.

MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):

The same thing for the depreciation of your land?

MRS. ROLLANDE GUILLETTE:

The same thing. Well, if I did not have any properties right
now in East Hereford, with the pipeline that's coming on I would wait
before buying any property, and if the pipeline goes through I am
going to go elsewhere. Quite simply, I wouldn't want to go anywhere
there, so if I wouldn't be interested, I'm sure I'm not the only one.
I'm sure there are lots of other people who will think the same way as
I do, and it would be very difficult for me to sell my house.

MR. JEAN PARÉ (Commissioner):

Now, you raised a certain number of things. You said the
corridors would be cut 100 feet wide, that there will be heat and
noise coming out of the distribution centre, that there will be an
evacuation chimney. Now, if the distribution centres didn't have
these characteristics, would that change your opinion; if there was no
chimney, if there was no noise, if there was no heat?

MRS. ROLLANDE GUILLETTE:

Obviously the impact would be less, but I would still not be
reassured, because I checked on the Internet with respect to the
transmission of natural gas, and I found that there was an explosion
in Manitoba after ten years only; two explosions, and the first
explosion was caused strictly by corrosion and the second one was due
to the first.

So I am saying, wait a minute, ten years that's not long. I am
not reassured here. I mean, why would I disrupt my quality of life.
Why am I going to deprive myself of the peace and quiet that I have
right now when natural gas is not going to give me anything. We don't
need it. That's why we live in the countryside. We want peace from
these things.

MR. JEAN PARÉ (Commissioner):

Thank you very much, Mrs. Guillette.

MRS. ROLLANDE GUILLETTE:

I can add, though, that they came to our land without
permission, without anything, and with all kinds of detectors. They
went right across our land and put little flags, one on the lilac,
because the lilac is just next to the fountain, and the other on the
other side of the edge of our land. I mean, it's unpleasant. We didn't
even know what they were doing there.

MR. JEAN PARÉ (Commissioner):

When did this happen?

MRS. ROLLANDE GUILLETTE:

I cannot tell you the exact date, but it happened this summer,
end of June or beginning of July, and these are disrespectful
practices which we find quite unpleasant, coming to our land without
permission.

In your mind, was this before the East Hereford commission,
before ...

MRS. ROLLANDE GUILLETTE:

It was just before.

Thank you very much for your testimony.
Mr. Robert Boisvert.

MR. ROBERT BOISVERT:

Good evening, Mr. Chairman. I bought a lot from my father in
1977. Since that time I have continued doing my hay and selective
cutting of wood for the construction of my house in St-Sulpice and
that of Stuckley South. Every year I cut wood for heating and
construction with the wood that has already fallen, I never cut a
healthy tree. I am part of a forestry group and I reforest certain
sectors of my property.

This land gives me a lot of pleasure. I observe wildlife, I do
hiking and I use my skidoo over there. I also do hunting using an arc
or a firearm as my grandparents do. I hunt little game and deer and I
do some trapping.

My interest with respect to the subject: With the arrival of a
new segment of TQM, a fifth permanent servitude of 23 metres would be
added to the three other servitudes that I already have. On my
property right now there are two Hydro-Québec servitudes and a Gaz
Métropolitain servitude. In addition, next year Hydro-Québec will
impose another servitude on us.

With the addition of a new segment from TQM, there will be
another major loss of my forest. This servitude would reduce the
forest cover that is so dear to me. It is part of my family heritage
that would be reduced for my children and future generations.

My opinion with respect to the entire project: I disagree with
the project as a whole. The economic spinoffs will never make up for
the negative permanent impacts and the several prejudices caused
before, during and after the passage of the pipeline.

TQM has no respect for humans. In addition, it is a bit late for
the company to rebuild its image. I am against this project because I
have no trust, whatsoever, in TQM which has hidden important facts
from us regarding our safety.

My concerns with respect to impacts of the project: The period
between the first and second part of the BAPE hearings is very short.
For us small land owners, in this respect, we have time, technical
resources and financial means and legal knowledge that is missing for
us to be able to find relevant and strong arguments. These give a big
advantage to the developer who has all the resources available. The
balance of power is very uneven.

All of this has caused us a lot of stress, a lot of worry, a
loss of pleasure with our children during the summer period. All
these inconveniences cannot be paid for in the case of a refusal, even
if the project is accepted. Plus the developer has done the strict
minimum with respect to information and consultation - See Volume II
appended - to meet the government's requirements.

Now, in the documents given to owners during the information
sessions, TQM never mentioned that in addition to the perpetual
servitude, they had a control area of 30 metres on either side of the
servitude. Having us sign a contract like the right-of-way ownership
agreement in Appendix A and B, having the owners sign this with the
underlying implications, it's inconceivable in 1997. The government
should not allow such a thing to happen.

In their document D510, Page 129, I asked the following
question, 'In the event of a refusal of the project by the Minister,
what does TQM plan to do?' You, Mr. Genest, Chairman of the hearings,
rephrased my question. You said, 'Do you have a plan B, Mr. Trudelle?'

Mr. Trudelle said, 'The impact will be mainly felt by PNGTS,
that is the main user. There is no pipeline. I believe that Mr.
Flummerfeld could explain the consequences that he could suffer.'

The developer should, based on the content of the project study,
Volume II and appended, describe the main alternatives for the
project. In addition, he should also consider the possibility that the
project cannot go ahead. Mr. Trudelle did not answer my question.
This absence of an answer shows once again that the developer has not
fulfilled all his obligations, believing that the project has been
accepted beforehand.

Information and consultation of the developer: TQM has provided
several information and consultation sessions. I attended that of
Eastman, Roussin, Granby and Magog, and never did TQM or its agents
consult us. Never did they ask for our opinion, if we were going to
face any negative impacts following the passage of this pipeline. At
East Hereford on July 2nd, 1997, Mr. Trudelle said he did not believe
that he had heard anybody say that they were against the pipeline.

How come he was not aware of this? Did Mr. Delisle not report
to him about the information sessions in Magog, when an owner asked
the owners present to raise their hands if they were against this
project. All the owners raised their hands following this request.
Mr. Alain could confirm this.

I noticed at the public hearings that you had to ask the same
question two times and rephrase your question to have an answer. The
answer was always evasive or either empty or boringly long. The
developer talked about everything and nothing, you know, a smooth
talker, but always beating around the bush.

An example, a question from Mr. Marius Cloutier regarding the
safety valves which gave off gas that smelled like rotten eggs. The
developer said they were not safety valves, but sectioning valves.
This type of answer shows that the developer doesn't always know what
they are talking about. If this dividing valve or sectioning valve
leaks and gives off an odour, this valve has a serious problem and I
hope Gaz Métropolitain has made the necessary repairs.

With respect to private property: In October 1996, one of my
neighbours came to see me, he was all pissed off and he asked me, he
said, I'm the one who placed a little rope with red or fluorescent
bands on the trees and in mine. After verification it was a firm that
did this. It was Gaz Métropolitain.

Mr. Yves Simard of Gaz Métropolitain, informed me at the time
that a new segment was planned by TQM in cooperation with Gaz
Métropolitain. Employees had done a forestry inventory in our forest
and had placed these bands.

The first inconvenience - this company did not ask for any
permission to go on our property. This apparently innocuous wire just
completely disrupted our deer hunting in the fall of 1996. My son of
14 years old did not find this funny because he had paid his hunting
permit with $36.75 of his pocket money. I gave the name of my son to
the developer, because my son wanted his permit to be reimbursed by
the developer as an excuse.

The second - in the spring of 1997, on a Sunday afternoon,
surveyors were doing some survey work on my property. In the land
ownership agreement, .4.4, the owner grants to the employees his
servitude of right-of-way on his building in case of emergency, and in
the absence of an emergency an employee or the employees should not go
into the building except if they had prior authorization from the
owner.

At the last information session in Roussin I spoke about these
events. At the information sessions in Granby and Magog, Mr. Delisle
answered that the company did not have all the names of the owners,
and that the employees had knocked on the doors and if there was no
answer, the employees did their work nevertheless, because they did
the work in a big hurry.

On the first part of the public hearings on June 16th in
Roussin, Mr. Delisle, on behalf of TQM, made all kinds of excuses with
respect to the violation of property by his employees. In addition,
strict orders were given to all firms involved in the project in
Granby, in Magog and in East Hereford. Despite all these orders, TQM
employees still violate our properties.

The Flora: The servitudes that TQM wants to go through my
property will destroy my forest cover forever. In addition, because it
goes right through the forest, it will leave traces of permanent
negative impacts, not only on the right-of-way but also on either side
of the right-of-way.

In addition to cutting trees forever on the right-of-way, the
servitude will also damage the section of trees adjacent to the
servitude leaving them without protection again violent winds and hot
sun. It would take years for young vegetation to cover the wood and
for the different strata of vegetation to balance the nature around
here, making it less disgraceful to our eyes.

Fauna and wildlife: By cutting 23 metres of forest TQM will
reduce food for little game and deer. What is going to happen to the
pékans and the red lynx. These animals need a strong forest cover to
survive. Mr. Urgel Delisle, the developer, said at the public
hearings that the employees will begin by cutting the trees around the
servitudes in February 1998. The employees would leave little pieces
of branches on the ground for the deer.

The following year, these animals would be able to get some food
from that, but I have never seen any deer dig 40 centimetres down, in
addition, when it is 20 degrees below zero and the wind is high, in the
winter, the deer do not feed with grass because their digestive system
changes. What would happen to the deer in the winter of 1999, if it is
not the grass from the servitude that would feed them. They would no
longer have the hardwood around there to feed them.

This negative impact for the wildlife could be major and even
catastrophic if Mother Nature does not cooperate for one or two
winters in a row. In addition, it is the big males who are most
vulnerable. If there is a reduction of the male population, there is
reduction of reproduction of the herd.

In zones 6 and 5, 9,135 special permits for deer had been issued
in addition to the cutting that will be done during the season of
hunting. All of this could be catastrophic for several years to come.
I am a trapper during my leisure time and I do not capture pikans
because there are very few of them.

Yet the marketing of its fur is very, very attractive. It varies
between $50 and $100 for a small female, which is sort of grey,
whereas the marketing of a bear, a black bear, is about $75. To
survive the pékan needs a dense wooded habitat near waterways.

As for the trapping of lynx, it is forbidden in our sector.
Around the 1960's, it was much easier to see a red lynx than a deer.
Very strict restrictions have been issued to save the species.

All of this shows that the developer doesn't know the impact on
wildlife, and that the only interest is to get their pipeline going.

Loss of real estate value: With respect to my neighbour, Bruce
Page, and myself, on December 1, 1998, we will each have five
servitudes, and the developer is trying to convince us that there
wouldn't be any loss of real estate value. Yet he said it very clearly
at public hearings that at 40% or more - that we would have a loss of
value of about 40% of more, so the accumulation of servitudes would
result in a loss of value for our properties and we should be
compensated accordingly.

The promoter does not take into account, in his compensation,
the future developments in our region. I have also contacted a few
real estate agents on the analysis of a sale of property with
servitudes. They say very clearly there are losses of value,
significant losses of value, because of permanent servitudes. This
loss of value is much more significant when you see the servitudes
from the road or from the residence.

All of this is said during the negotiations between the
partners, but it is never written in contracts. These words come from
Mr. Claude Desgagné, certified real estate agent.

Safety: The developer says that their pipeline is perfectly
safe, yet relevant documents have been filed by the Comité de
Viligence from the Pointe de l'Ile. In these documents, photographs
show the results of explosions with deaths, explosions with injured
people and explosions with material damages. All these photographs
are not beautiful to see. Just looking at them, I got a cold sweat.

At the very first information session, TQM up until now has
always said that there has never been an accident to their knowledge.
How come that a big pipeline company like TQM, which is associated
with Gaz Métropolitain, is not aware of these types of accidents?

If TQM is not aware, then we are all in danger because this
company doesn't have the necessary expertise for this type of project.
Denying that any serious accident has existed in Canada over the past
15 years shows a lack of total respect towards people.

How can this company set up an adequate emergency plan if it
doesn't have expertise of the risks and recommendations following a
serious accident.

Impact on humans: servitudes disrupt our tranquillity, our
freedom to move around in peace and quiet on our property. It causes
us several prejudices. It prevents us from enjoying our property
fully, and it is a source of significant stress. All these
psychological impacts lead to a reduction in our quality of life.

Follow-up: The developer's follow-up is nil, yet Mr. Delisle had
assured us that strict directives had been given to all his employees.
To date, several of them must be unemployed. What will the situation
be after the pipeline is accepted? I have no trust whatsoever in this
company which believes only in making money to the expense of land
owners while keeping them ignorant of the dangers related to a
pipeline. This company has no respect for human beings.

The installation of the first pipeline in 1983left a bad taste
in the mouth of the municipal authorities in the village Stuckley Sud,
and most of the citizens. The primary issue related to the presence of
the municipal wells on lot 209, just a few metres from the existing
right-of-way and the planned rights-of-ways. Dynamiting in 1983
caused deviations in underground waterways supplying the wells. This
text is taken from the analysis report of the CPTAQ, Technical
Services Directory.

The result of the passage of the first pipeline has
repercussions on our tax. I pay 10% for water tax in Stuckley Sud
even though I am not served by this now and for a few years now. The
developer associated with Gaz Métropolitain has not shown any
intention of reimbursing municipalities or the citizens who are
affected by the passage of this pipeline.For the developer what is
most important is to install their pipeline at any cost. This
overrides the interests of the humans, of the flora and the fauna.

Suggestions, comments and recommendations: The government should
pass a law regarding servitudes to render justice to owners. Knowing
that there have been serious accidents in Canada, how come Gaz
Métropolitain, together with TQM, does not have a real emergency plan
of measures for the pipeline which has been on our territory for the
past 15 years.

I asked the government, our representatives, that Gaz
Métropolitain be blamed for putting the lives of the population of the
Eastern Townships in danger. If the developers want their pipeline at
all cost, other alternatives are available. They can use the
Montreal/Highwater line, which would have fewer impacts on the
population of the Eastern Townships.

They can also link up with other government authorities to use
the public rights-of-ways, such as highways or Hydro-Québec rights-of-
ways. Since their pipe is safe, there shouldn't be any problems.

We are close to the year 2000. There should be better
consultation between or among these parties for the welfare of the
community and not on the backs of the community.

Mr. Chairman, I have a text which I would like to file, a
supplementary text, concerning a question which I asked at Magog, when
I asked the promoter to file the list of the landowners along the
Sabrevoix/Sherbrooke line, which hadn't yet been finalized, and they
answered to me that my question was unfounded, but after certain
research I found one person, so I would like to file this with you in
order that you may contact this person. There are other persons
obviously who live there, but it is going to take time and resources
which we don't have.

Thank you for your presentation. You mentioned that you have
lost faith in the company which is promoting this project, that is a
severe judgment. Is your judgment based on the non-respect of your
property or is it in terms of the whole project?

MR. ROBERT BOISVERT:

It is on both, on the non-respect of my property and on all the
rest, especially because they make big excuses in Roussin on June
16th. The same thing happened at Granby and the same thing happened
at Magog and the same thing at East Hereford, and it is continuing,
Mr. Chairman.

If we look at the first route that went through, Gas Inter Cité
who came and saw us and who asked us for authorization, there was a
cheque of $200 for the preliminary land surveying and the evaluation
of the forest and the route. They came back to see me twice because
they had changed their route as they went along. I had another $200
cheque, and I said is that going to go down, they said no.

They said if it is not going to be one route, it is going the
other, but they respected us at the beginning even though there were
prejudices, but TQM never respected us. They used the right of passage
of Métropolitain Gas in order to do a certain amount of land
surveying, but in order to walk over properties, they are not entitled
to go outside the right-of-way, and when Gaz Inter Cité did their work
there were security guards who prohibited anybody whatsoever from
going outside of the right-of-way corridors. They haven't done so,
they haven't respected us from the beginning and they continue to show
absolutely no respect for us.

And they've hidden the safety issue from us, coming and saying
they have never had an accident. Perhaps it is true there has never
been an accident directly to them, but the fact that they never even
had any knowledge of any accident, well... The very first evening, at
the second part of the BAPE hearing at Roussin - no, not at Roussin,
but at the Hotel Ideal.

At Centre Roussin.

MR. ROBERT BOISVERT:

There were two documents we saw where they talked about two
explosions.

These non-authorized passages on your land, despite the
directives of the TQM employees, they are still non-authorized
passages?

MR. ROBERT BOISVERT:

I wasn't there last week, but they went to one of my neighbours,
not last Monday, but the Monday before that, they went to Mr.
Chapleau's property. He was having his breakfast in the morning, and
suddenly he sees somebody opening up his barn and who was it? It was
employees of Mr. Poisson who were going and verifying his bush field
and yet, there were directives which apparently had been given.

It was said that, 'They were supposed to have contacted you or
written you', and nothing of that had been done. And after that they
said, 'We're going to Mr. Boisvert's property to look at his cedar
growth.' So it is either they're coming to my property or my father's
property, I wasn't there. I live in two different places. I can't
always be at my property.

Last fall, what they did, two weeks afterwards I go to my other
property, what happened, my neighbour comes and he is in absolute fury
because of these intruders.

So this information is exact, The Commission finds this as
deplorable as you do. You have a great experience with the Virginia
deer, explain to us on the basis of your experience, how this kind of
construction is going to harm the feeding of the Virginia deer? If I
understand right, the first year the chipped wood will be used as
food.

MR. ROBERT BOISVERT:

No, not the chipped wood, but the branches, the branches of the
cedars and the maples, the buds.

The deer eat that?

MR. ROBERT BOISVERT:

Oh yes, they eat that, and when they are hungry they will eat
right through to the bark and eat all the little shoots, but I don't
have photos of this here, but I am going to file them on Wednesday or
Thursday by my father, because in Stuckley we don't have any place
that does one hour developing. I took photos of the places where
there has been cutting to show the difference between the two, so they
are not going to be able to feed themselves the year afterwards,
especially in our sector which is a sector where there is deer
gatherings.

It is very well defined. It is between the Robert Savage Road
and the Diligence Road and the Montplaisir Road. It is an official
cartographed deer gathering. I knew that we had deer that stayed all
winter long in our sector and I fed them. There were a lot of deer
which used to stay there all through the winter, but I didn't know
that there was an official cartographed deer gathering done by the
Ministry, but after all that, now they say there are too many deer,
and perhaps in the zone there are too many deer, but it doesn't
necessarily mean that in our sector, according to the Ministry, and on
the basis of the [inaudible] it doesn't mean that there are
necessarily too many deer in our sector.

There are sectors where there would only be 20 deer per square
kilometre. In our sector, maybe there are only 10, so in our sector,
given that it's a deer gathering, it could be harmful. Even if we
scream and the same thing as when we put up signs, nothing happens,
and when it's already gone through the forest. They have to go
through the electric line in order to get to the forest and especially
with Hydro-Québec, and in year 2010, there is going to be 120 KVA
which is going to go from the Stuckley station over, and I am not very
many miles away. I'm not even 1,000 feet away from the Hydro-Québec
station. So the impact is going to be very severe, very severe.

MR. JEAN PARÉ (Commissioner):

Mr. Boisvert, you allude to the eventual project of Hydro-Québec
for year 2010, but you said next year Hydro-Québec is going to impose
another right-of-way upon us. What exactly are you referring to?

MR. ROBERT BOISVERT:

Well, we have a 49 KVA line going from Stuckley and we thought
it was for Bombardier and they said, no it is Valcourt which is
coming, but after the information evenings they said it was very
expensive. You know, when there is no electricity for an hour or two
at Bombardier with 2,000 or 3,000 employees, it's very expensive. They
want to have other sources, other supplies of current, so it is
Bombardier, but Hydro-Québec has actually announced that there is
going to be a new right-of-way.

They have announced it, and given that it is not a line of more
than 315,000 volts, there won't be any BAPE hearings. Given that
there is one, and it is of a lower voltage, it's just going to be
another one through there.

MR. JEAN PARÉ (Commissioner):

Have they started negotiating with you in order to buy another
servitude?

MR. ROBERT BOISVERT:

No, we just had one information evening and two letters which
have been sent to us, to the effect that they are starting the
process. They simply advise the municipality that they had this
project, period. The MRC and the agricultural territory protection,
they have been advised, but we are always the last people to hear
about it.

MR. JEAN PARÉ (Commissioner):

Could you file this letter with The Commission?

MR. ROBERT BOISVERT:

Yes, sir. I am sorry, I don't have it with me. I could have
given it to you right away.

MR. JEAN PARÉ (Commissioner):

Okay, you can send it to our secretary. You allude, as well, Mr.
Boisvert, at some point, to relevant documents which had been filed by
the Pointe de l'Ile Viligence Committee. Are these the documents you
are talking about when you talked about the two reviews or magazines
that have been filed at Roussin.

MR. ROBERT BOISVERT:

I returned to the Roussin Centre, they were supposed to have
extra copies. They say everybody could obtain these copies of it, so
I went back the day afterwards or two days afterwards, but there are
no more copies left, but the gentleman... I don't know whether it's
exactly that, the representative from the Pointe de l'Ile Viligence
Committee, but, you know, he is the person who had the big box of
documents there with films and everything in it.

The magazines were in that box and I looked at them. I saw pipes
that had been burst and blasted. I don't know how many accidents had
occurred in Canada but the figures were like 800.

MR. JEAN PARÉ (Commissioner):

Okay, it is just to make sure that we have the right reference.
I heard about this document before.

MR. ROBERT BOISVERT:

But where you can get the document, I don't know.

MR. JEAN PARÉ (Commissioner):

You alluded later on to a report from the analysis service of
the CPQTRS. Is this a document that you have in your possession, and
could we have a copy of it?

MR. ROBERT BOISVERT:

Yes. And tomorrow evening my father is supposed to speak at the
Magog meeting, he will give it to you. It's an analysis; it's not a
commission like you people, it is just an analysis report.

MR. JEAN PARÉ (Commissioner):

In between time the secretary is going to check here, perhaps
it's already been filed, it's possible, and it would be interesting
that we have it. I don't have any other questions.

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):

MR. ROBERT BOISVERT:

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):

A lot of points have been covered here, but I just want to come
back for a few seconds to the question of safety. You mentioned the
fact that in terms of emergency plans the company doesn't have the
necessary expertise in terms of the risks associated with this sort of
project.

The company has asked an expert to carry out a study of analysis
and risk calculation, and you're probably aware of this, I understand
that you have participated very actively, and it is very much
appreciated, in the various consultation procedures, and we have all
been able to appreciate the exchanges between the representative from
the Ministry of Public Safety and the expert from the Bolivar Company.

MR. ROBERT BOISVERT:

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):

These discussions took place a certain time ago, and I was
wondering if since that time you have thought any more about this
study or about the various issues that were dealt with in the study,
and if so, I would like you to relate to us the fruit of your
reflections.

MR. ROBERT BOISVERT:

Well, from the little bit that I could see in the documents at
Roussin, when they said that there is a possibility of a total break
in the pipe, sort of it's a possibility of one to four million years,
possibility of a partial break, it's one in ... you know, it's figures
of...

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):

No, no, I know what you're talking about. The idea is... I
understand, I follow you.

MR. ROBERT BOISVERT:

How come they are talking about cases of a thousand years when
there has only been pipelines around since the 1940's or 50's, and
there have been explosions since then. They show this in the document.
Are they more specialized than the others? Are they going to be
smarter than the others and do a better job than the others. That is
what is difficult to understand.

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):
It is difficult to understand, yes.

MR. ROBERT BOISVERT:

And when the representative of the company that you were talking
about, you were talking about over, you know millions of years, I am
not educated enough to figure out the connection between the two.

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):

It is difficult to understand, because we only live let's say
eighty years or something.

MR. ROBERT BOISVERT:

So that is what I mean when I say that it is long and boring
answers. That was one of those long and boring answers. After that,
when we see the pamphlet on all the explosions that there have been, I
don't understand, how they can... If it is only once per 1,000 years,
then we shouldn't have had any kind of explosion yet, and that's why I
don't trust this company in the way they operate.

If they had told us clearly, yes, there have been explosions.
If they had been candid, yes, there has been accidents, there has been
material damages and we are going to prove to you that we can do
better, especially in terms of the grade or the quality of pipes that
is going to...

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):

What do you mean by the grade?

MR. ROBERT BOISVERT:

What I heard about is that there is going to a 40 or an 80
schedule or a 160 schedule or 220 schedule, I don't remember when I
talked about that, and Mr. Chairman said you should be hired by TQM,
and I would say I prefer where I am and being able to take photos.

They are talking about Grade 1 pipes which they are going to put
through. It's going to be 6.7 millimetres thick, a pipe that is going
to weigh 1,400 pounds. For me, Mmm. I haven't necessarily made the
distinction because the pressure normally, in terms what I know, it's
going to have to be a schedule 80 pipe that's necessary.

The English term is extra heavy, I believe, if I am not
mistaken, and you can also have the double extra heavy, but in our
sector, I don't know if it's because we are second class citizens, but
they are going to put us a Grade 1 pipe through, and then after that
they've come to talk to us about the fact that in a certain sector,
where there were 20 people in a 1.6 kilometre portion of the line,
then they are going to change the grade, but when there are people who
are going to have constructed houses and the pipeline is going to go
by, not much further away than it is from you and me, I don't know how
important it is for them; are they going to put grade 1 or grade 4 or
grade 5 in there?

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):

Just to conclude, you seem to have a particular interest in the
grades and the thickness of the pipes as a safety issue. I am talking
for you and your property and your family. Would a change in the
thickness of the pipes make a difference in terms of your acceptance?

MR. ROBERT BOISVERT:

As I said at Roussin, and I even said this to Mr. Delisle, that
the company, the way they were acting, they were treating us as small
landowners, like assholes, and that's what they've continued to do. I
tell you, I don't want the pipeline. We already have one route going
through and that is one too many, with all the negative impacts that
we have suffered.

They want to do this thing, they are going to try not to have to
go into arbitration, to try not to negotiate and put one over on us.
We don't want to have anything to do with it. There is already one
that has gone through and that is one too many, and it means that the
least impact - well, there would be a way [inaudible] no such study
has been done, and they can't prove to The Commission that another
study has been done.

So, Mr. Boisvert, I know that nobody can blame you for having
supplied long and boring answers. I would like to thank you now.

MR. ROBERT BOISVERT:

I have a letter, which requests answers, to Hydro-Québec, and
what they asked us for before the 1st of August. Would you like us to
file it with The Commission?

If you think that it could be useful for The Commission, we
would certainly accept it with pleasure. So thank you very much, and
now, Mrs. Lucie-Roy Alain for the Groupe des Frontières. So Mrs.
Alain, you are prolific, you are wearing several different hats here.

MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:

With your permission, I would ask to be accompanied by Normand
Roy, who is also in charge of this file. Good evening, Mr. Chairman
and Mr. Commissioners. My name is Lucie Roy-Alain, I think you
probably remember me, and I am accompanied by Normand Roy who
represents the border group or the frontier group.

This group was set up in order to give a voice to other people
who are opposed to this project. We want to point out to you that it's
not easy for the majority of people to come and debate these kinds of
issues and present a brief. We have the impression that we are tiny
little Davids trying to fight an enormous Goliath.

We also have to point out to you that we trying to keep cool
heads by saying that there is no point, that we are wasting our time,
that everything has already been decided. We are going to start
reading our brief.

We are a certain number of residents or landowners or farmers
from East Hereford or the surrounding region. We want to draw your
attention to one of our major concerns, that is the project to put a
gazoduc through by Trans-Quebec Maritimes. We have chosen to live in
the country, and this project is going to come and trouble our peace,
our quiet, as well as the freedom that we have enjoyed up until this
time. Like just about everybody, we also have been caught short by
this pipeline project.

At the information meeting on January 28th, 1997, at Coaticook,
the company seemed to try to neutralize our position by talking about
the threat of expropriation if we didn't sign up. The whole population
in East Hereford and the surrounding areas should have been informed
of the proposed pipeline passage because it is the whole population
which is going to be affected.

We realize that the information that we had was insufficient
because the company seemed in such a hurry to get our agreements as
soon as possible and it's at all levels. Their behaviour, that they
behaved like a conqueror of this land without any permission, and
their hurry to get the [inaudible] signed is reflected in the article
which appeared in Les Affaires on Saturday, July 1st, which you will
find in Appendix 1.

At the Bureau d'Audiences Publique we learned that the people in
Vermont didn't want this pipeline to go through their state because of
their wetlands and the environmental regulations. There are a lot of
wetlands in our territory as well. Are we less intelligent than the
people in Vermont, is this why we are going to let the TQM put their
pipeline through our land in order to supply the American market?

Since June 18th, 1987, the council of the Memphremagog MRC has
announced their intention to oppose the TQM pipeline. Another group,
the coalition of the land owners concerned by the pipeline is opposed
to the project.

In the light of what we now know, we affirm that we, as well,
are opposed to the arrival of the prolongation of the natural gas
transportation network between Lachenaie and the Quebec border at East
Hereford and New Hampshire.

The construction of this pipeline will require a corridor
varying between 23 to 33 metres, that will affect 20 municipalities
within the Coaticook and Memphremagog MRC's. 220 landowners will be
directly affected by important negative impacts.

From an environmental point of view, the negative impact, such
as the destruction of the forest, fauna, habitations, swamps and
flooded plains, it means that we have a lot to be concerned about.

From an archaeological point of view, we are going to lose pages
of our history because we know that excavations in surrounding cities
have allowed us to confirm the passage of Amerindian people on this
territory south of East Hereford. Surely it was one of the places they
went through because of the Hall River which communicates with the
Connecticut River.

It's important not to forget that the forest is considered as
the lungs of the earth, and that the swamps have the capacity to
filter and purify air, and therefore are called the earth's kidneys.
There are also pipeline markers which will be planted throughout the
whole length of the route of this and which may end up causing
injuries and we'll constantly be stumbling and banging into them when
we work in the fields, in the pasture lands or in the woodlands when
we're walking or practicing sports.

There will be perpetual holes in our landscape which will come
and totally destroy the charm of our little area which is known as
part of the flowery countryside of Québec, which got the title in the
villages and flowery countryside of Québec since 1994, and was chosen
as the flowery countryside of Canada in 1996 by the flower
collectivity.

The efforts our citizens are now recognized at the provincial
level. We got a certificate of excellence through the Phenix Prize,
from the selective collection of the Collectivité du Québec in 1997,
for our involvement in favour of the environment. But if we're not
being told it's dangerous, the MRC of Coaticook thinks they are going
to have to adopt a regulation asking the municipalities not to give
construction permits for a width of several metres on each side of the
pipeline.

This protective band will penalize the landowners from the
municipalities because the landowners will have land on which they
have construction projects for either their retirement or their
vacation.

In the United States, there were 891 incidents, 37 deaths, 170
wounded people, and 183 million dollars of damages have already been
caused, and Canada, as well, has had their fair share of this kind of
accidents.

During the first part of the public hearings, we got specific
answers concerning this project which threatens to disturb the quality
of life which we enjoy in the Eastern Townships. Don't forget that
the Eastern Townships is considered the greenest region in Quebec.
The information gathered demonstrates clearly that it's possible to
supply this gas to United States through alternative routes.

We are not against development, but we support sustainable
development. There is no reason to come into the Eastern Townships and
to East Hereford and cause such a disturbance of the human beings and
our virgin land. Our country and the quality of life which we have are
very precious, and let's not forget that the sources of drinking
water, rivers, bodies of water, agricultural land, plantations, deer
gatherings and rare species which may be disappearing, archaeological
sites, maple groves and natural landscapes are going to be disturbed
and undermined very much.

Don't also forget the expropriations, the safety and the
perpetual risk of accidents from fires and explosions. Why undermine
this tourism, the people coming here on vacation, nature lovers,
recreation and rest areas?

When the Bureau des Audiences Publiques came through, there were
several questions concerning the emergency plans. This plan is going
to be given to municipalities where the pipeline will be built. Our
question is how will the municipalities know what they have to invest,
in terms of equipment and communication, if they are only advised of
what they are expected to do afterwards.

Up until now, the municipalities haven't been met, except in
order to ask whether the project was in conformity with the by-laws
and regulations. These hearings have allowed us to learn that there is
no emergency plan prepared even for a local community like ours. Mr.
Genest seemed surprised that we didn't have doctors and nurses - that
there were not doctors and nurses (in the plural) in our village.

Our remoteness from emergency services, health services, safety
services, and the possibility of what the reduction of the number of
hours which the customs offices in East Hereford and Hereford Road
would be are other reasons to refuse the passage of any pipeline on a
permanent basis on our territory.

We also realize that in certain places they are counting on the
contribution of volunteers in order to, in fact, implement the
emergency plan. We are only 325 persons in East Hereford. There are
people who have to go far away to work, and the volunteers have
enormous responsibilities in order to ensure our parish, municipal and
social life, which is a quality life.

They are, in fact, exhausted and don't necessarily want to
invest energy into what they consider to be the fact that we are
surrendering to the profit requirements of our American neighbours.

If you allow, Mr. Chairman, I would like to open a parenthesis
concerning volunteers. Do I have the permission to do so?

MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:

Last night, questions were asked of our mayor concerning the
safety plan, and he said that he started working on that since the 1st
of January 1997, and Ghislaine Gilbert, who came and spoke before us,
said that he had worked on this emergency plan, and the mayor said - I
don't remember what kind of question it was that was asked, but he
said that there were volunteers, there were resource - volunteer
resources that were working on this plan, and that bothered me.

It raised questions in my mind so I went to the municipal office
today and I asked the municipal clerk who the volunteers were, because
it was supposed to have existed for so long so we should certainly be
able to know who are the volunteers. She was very surprised by my
question, and then she said - I don't remember how it was called, but
the fact that civil safety was being worked on with a certain Mr.
Bisson, and that the secretary had to sit on this committee and it's
East Hereford and St-Venant which are working together, so there are
two secretaries that worked together, and there is one elected member
from East Hereford, Mr. Robert Fauteux, and one elected person from
St-Venant, whose name is André Parizeau.

So the volunteers are completely - there are no volunteers, in
fact.

They are completely absent from the committee, this is what
you're saying.

MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:

Well, there aren't any volunteers, and they're going to have
difficulty finding volunteers because I have very clearly made it
known that I don't want to have anything to do with this volunteer
network. If they want to have gas in East Hereford, well then it is up
to them to take care of their own problems. So I am going to close
this parenthesis now.

The law on the protection of agricultural territory was enacted
on to protect land and agriculture. An agricultural land owner can no
more divide up his land in order to sell part of it or to share it
with his children. Will there be any respect for agricultural
territory which we have to protect in order that they be durable and
sustainable and renewable? The perpetual breach that is going to be in
our forest is incompatible with the agricultural vision which we are
supposed to have in our countries.

Yesterday we talked about the regulation concerning cutting down
trees, and I called the Coaticook MRC today, because it is the MRC who
is in charge of having this regulation respected. It's a Mr. Pierre
Cormier who is in charge of this regulation concerning the cutting of
trees, and Mr. Cormier said that they are not terribly enthusiastic
about this whole matter, and he said that in the briefs that the MRC
filed, the subject was dealt with.

I am now going to continue. For all the reasons enumerated in
this letter, and for many others as well, we are vigorously opposed
to the arrival of a pipeline in East Hereford. We refuse the pollution
which will be caused by noise or the smell which are going to be part
of this poisoned gift.

We refuse the idea that our virgin countryside is going to be
violated by a pipeline. We refuse that we are going to have to endure
a perpetual servitude. We refuse that our municipality be perpetually
stigmatized by this. We refuse that TQM install, in our little
village, its measuring stations or compression stations or any other
kind of station, and it is important not to forget that they behave as
though they own the place behind our backs.

What are they going to do when they will have the right of
passage? We appeal to the competent authorities to help us in this
matter and to support us in this. We would ask you that TQM go through
Highwater if they want to go to the United States.

It is Normand and I who are coordinators of the Frontier Group,
and you will see the signatures on the following pages, and copies
have been sent to the people whose names you see here. We haven't had
time yet to have this signed by many people. We have only started
having this petition signed this morning at a 7h 45, and a lot of
people were not at their home.

They are either working or on vacation. We consider that 52
people, in a tiny municipality which numbers only 325 - and you have
to subtract from 325 about 100 children, and I think that you have to,
as well, subtract 52 people who are vacationers or not easy to get
interested - for one day of collecting signatures, we think it is a
very good result, and these are not anonymous people who signed it,
there are people who are opposed to it, residents of our town.

We intend to continue because we have a lot of work to do, as
much as possible to get others to sign it before sending this off, and
these signatures can be filed at Magog on the 7th or 8th of August.

Thank you. The brief from the Coaticook MRC was transmitted. I
believe it's document DM-39, which will be available for consultation.

You are reiterating most of the arguments that have already been
presented. The Commission understands it very well, and will analyze
them. Now, with respect to the archaeological potential, don't you
believe that archaeological excavations made possible by the resources
made available to the population by the developer will help acquire
some knowledge and develop this archaeological potential in your
community? Isn't it a plus rather than a negative?

MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:

Well, the lack of trust and the climate of lack of trust, I
believe prevents us from seeing the positive. I think we would prefer,
I believe it's the Ministry of Cultural Affairs, they have to give the
permits for these types of archaeological excavations, so I prefer
them to make that decision.

Well, yes, but you know that archaeological excavations are
expensive. You require resources, professionals, and the Ministry of
Culture and Communications doesn't have these resources unfortunately,
but, yes, your answer then, is that the current climate does not allow
for these types of exchanges, and does not allow you to imagine any
sort of collaboration in this regard?

MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:

Well, I've always been told that never will anybody give you
something for nothing, and I think that if they came and did the
excavations in our neighbourhood, it's because they are looking for
something in return, and they're not going to give us that in return,
so we don't really want it.

Okay, that's clear. This is something new that you have
mentioned in the arguments that you presented, and that is the
location of boundaries. You're saying that there are risks of falling
over when you are walking or doing other sporting activities. Do you
have any experiences regarding this, because from what I have seen,
these indications or markers would not be very disrupting. I believe
if you go through Highway 10 there is a bike path along there.

MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:

Well, there is nobody who has the experience in our
neighbourhood, and we really don't want that experience.

Well, you're saying there's a danger of falling over and getting
injured.

MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:

Well, look, it could happen. There is nothing that is eternal on
this earth. It's going to get old, and animals are probably going to
get stuck in those markers. They can't read, animals.

MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:

Well, look, I want to point out that it is true that there are
things that look like what has already been filed, but for me, to have
people sign this, we had to have things that are pretty much the same,
because these people have all read this, and that's what adds to this.

No, no, I'm not criticizing you, I'm just pointing out that The
Commission has understood the nature of - well, the points of view
that you are raising. Mr. Paré?

MR. JEAN PARÉ (Commissioner):

You talk about the Coaticook MRC's intention to come up with a
regulation about asking the government for preventing the issue of
permits around these pipelines, what's that based on?

MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:

Well, I don't know, it was said by the 'préfet', but I know that
at the information session in East Hereford that point was raised. I
don't remember who talked about it.

MR. NORMAND ROY:

If I remember correctly, I believe they were talking about 100
metres, 300 feet.

MR. JEAN PARÉ (Commissioner):

My question was to know if somebody at the MRC expressed the
intention of controlling the use on either side of the pipeline, or if
it's just...

MR. NORMAND ROY:

Well, it's just verbal information that we got like that, but we
don't have any written information on the part of the MRC.
Personally, I don't have any written information, and I know that
through discussions we've heard this.

MR. JEAN PARÉ (Commissioner):

Between whom and whom?

MR. NORMAND ROY:
Well, I went on July 3rd to the meeting, and I know that that
point was raised, but I don't think it was discussed with the
representatives of the BAPE, but I know it was among the people.
That's why we wrote this down.

MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:

I am aware - I'm sure that in the MRC's report, that that point
is raised, because I remember seeing Mr. François Thomas, who is a
land developer, at the MRC, and I think he talked about this, and when
we went on the Internet they also talked about it. Perhaps the Bel
Environ Foundation had that in its documents yesterday.

MR. JEAN PARÉ (Commissioner):

Well, I'm told that in the brief of the Coaticook Regional
Council of Municipalities, that point is raised, so we would just have
to see if this corresponds to an intention. I'm asking you this
because any information is important for The Commission, that we want
to base our decisions on things that are as accurate as possible.

MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:

I am sure that I saw it on the Internet, and I am almost sure
that in the document presented by the Fondation Bel Environ that point
was raised and the words were reported. If I find it somewhere, I can
bring it to you.

MR. JEAN PARÉ (Commissioner):

There is no problem. In fact, once again, as I said, we have
information in this regard in the brief presented by the Regional
Council of Municipalities. It's just that you are saying something
that is very specific and very important, that is that the MRC wants
to adopt a regulation.

This is a legal move with legal consequences that has to follow
a certain procedure that is set up by the Municipal Court and the
Cities and Towns Act, and also the Urban Development Act, so I just
want to know if it's just a general intention or if it's a specific
intention. It could have certain consequences, and it could have
certain consequences on future uses and on value of properties.

MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:

Yes, I am almost sure that I am not mistaken, and neither are
the other people who have talked about it. I know that they are called
anthropical constraints and it should be something of the same
distances with the flooded areas.

MR. JEAN PARÉ (Commissioner):

On another point, one of your conclusions, or the first
conclusion of your brief, is that you are opposed to the arrival of a
pipeline in East Hereford. I think we all understand that, but
certainly you are asking TQM to go through Highwater, so in your
opinion the Highwater road is acceptable.

MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:

Well, there is already a pipeline there. That's not going to be
too bad, those people are used to it. It wouldn't be so bad to use
that line.

MR. JEAN PARÉ (Commissioner):

Well, but on the other side of Highwater is Vermont, and you're
saying in your brief that based on the information that you have, the
people in Vermont don't want this. Now, wouldn't it be more logical to
say there shouldn't be any pipeline at all?

MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:

Yes, but the people in Vermont don't want it. That's for the
United States. We don't need this, it's not for us. There are other
lines, they could go through the other lines that have been suggested
to supply gas to the United States.

MR. JEAN PARÉ (Commissioner):

Well, you are saying that you think the Highwater line is
acceptable, so I want to know why?

MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:

Well, because as I said before, they already have the pipeline
there, so it will be much easier for that line to be used, but when we
went and looked at the transcripts, we saw that the environmental
studies in this area on that side seem to be much more advanced than
here. Why are they more advanced there than here? We too, we would
need protection too. We need more detailed environmental studies too.

MR. JEAN PARÉ (Commissioner):

So you think that currently, so far, there hasn't been any
demonstration that the East Hereford area is better able to
accommodate the pipeline than the other side?

MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:

We don't need it.

MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):

Well, I'm just saying, I mean, in Highwater they don't need it
either. I mean, we're talking about the area of Portland and Boston.

MRS. LUCIE ROY-ALAIN:

Well yes, but it's going to the U.S. side, and it's clear that,
based on the transcripts, the environmental studies on our side are
not as advanced as there.

MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):

Thank you very much for your testimony. We are going to take a
break, a ten-minute break.

...UPON RESUMING AND UPON RESUMING...

Okay, now let's start off again. Mr. Ronald Owen.

MR. RONALD OWEN:

Good evening or good night.

MR. RONALD OWEN:

Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, my report includes questions,
impressions and opinions, not in my backyard, if you please, and not
even nature's front yard. Now, I'm prepared to give an explanation of
backyard and front yard in the English denomination, if you like. If
not, I will continue.

You can continue.

MR. RONALD OWEN:

To explain backyard or to go on?

MR. RONALD OWEN:

(Mr. Owen reads his prepared report)

Thank you very much for your questions, impressions and
opinions. Now, with respect to safety or security concerning the
number of years on the pipeline, do you have any detailed information
to give us on your opinion?

MR. RONALD OWEN:

I have seen photos of the accidents of a pipeline that has aged,
and the question that I raise is, it could happen with time passing.

Okay, Mr. Paré?

MR. JEAN PARÉ (Commissioner):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask my questions to Mr.
Owen in English. Mr. Owen, what I read and hear you saying is that
even if some many questions, questions concerning, en liasse, these
aspects have been raised, the information provided during these
hearings do not answer your questions, or have not responded
satisfactorily, is that correct?

MR. RONALD OWEN:

MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):

Could you expand on that, like telling us what aspects are not
properly answered at this point.

MR. RONALD OWEN:

Well, I think you can read in my report that my questions and
opinions are largely environmental, and I feel, in previous audiences
or sessions, that these questions have not been treated clearly and
precisely.

MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):

Could you be more precise on some aspects that are specific
concerns or worries for you at this stage?

MR. RONALD OWEN:

Well, my concern is certainly for a marsh or a swamp or a stream
of water. I cannot believe that a pipeline can be installed
underneath a marsh, and not cause horrible results, nor a stream of
water for that matter. I cannot believe that.

MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):

Even with the explanations given on the way the work would be
done, like passing under with directional drilling, or things like
that?

MR. RONALD OWEN:

I still don't believe it.

MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):

You said that marshes and streams that have been in place for
ten thousand years are not likely to be ever as functional again, yet
the environment we live in is largely man made, including rural areas
like this, having been considerably modified by human beings through
building, road building, paving, infrastructures, and so on; how can
these be more acceptable, or what makes the pipeline less acceptable,
in terms of man made intervention, than the other things upon which we
rely to keep on living and feeding ourselves, and so on?

MR. RONALD OWEN:

Well, I question the percentage of land area that has been toyed
with or played with by human beings. I think it's a very, very small
percentage. Even with our autoroutes and our pipelines and our hydro
lines, I still think it's a very small percentage, but I do not think
that we should interfere with that in any way whatsoever. I think we
should let nature be nature as much as possible.

MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):

Does that mean that any future project for either roads,
railways, industries or so on should be abandoned?

MR. RONALD OWEN:

No, I don't mean that at all, I'm really concerned about the
pipeline, from which we derive - as far as I can see - no benefits
whatsoever.

MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):

That is the main reason.

MR. RONALD OWEN:

MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):

Because you don't see the benefits.

MR. RONALD OWEN:

MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):

Good evening, Mr. Owen.

MR. RONALD OWEN:

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):

At the start of your presentation you mentioned that you could
explain what you mean, not in my backyard, and not even in nature's
front yard. I think we understand what you mean by 'not in my
backyard', but could you just explain briefly what you mean by 'not
even in nature's front yard.'

MR. RONALD OWEN:

Well, I'll have to go back to backyard, because in our backyards
- or in my backyard - I go for a rest and escape and relaxation. I
keep my front yard for visitors and spectators, and I consider that
nature - all of nature - is nature's front yard, and should be kept
for visitors and spectators as much as possible. Am I making myself
clear?

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):

I don't see the relationship with the pipeline.

MR. RONALD OWEN:

It's going to affect the visual impact for visitors and
spectators, is it not?

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):

No, that I understand, but I don't understand why you're talking
about front yard and backyard.

MR. RONALD OWEN:

Well, my front yard is special. I keep it presentable for
everybody who comes by, and I would like to see nature being allowed
to do the same thing; in other words, all of Quebec territory as
nature's front yard, which is specially cared for and made pleasing
for the passerby, the visitor, the neighbour, the proprietor, or
whatever.

MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):

Mr. Owen, further down in your presentation you say that Hydro-
Quebec created a right-of-way, and why not use it; are you suggesting
that there is an Hydro-Quebec entry nearby that we can use?

MR. RONALD OWEN:

What I'm referring to is the line that Hydro-Quebec has for its
installation of pylons and hydro lines, why not use the same
territory, or say underneath, in the same corridor that exists
already; why not use that?

MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):

Well, as you probably are aware, on several lengths, parts of
the proposed pipeline indeed would be placed nearby existing Hydro-
Quebec rights of way. My question is, in this area, is there a Hydro-
Quebec right-of-way that the pipeline could follow?

MR. RONALD OWEN:

Not that I am aware of. The line that I am referring to is the
one that contains the Hydro-Electric lines in current existence, and
since they are part - I believe they have stock or they are part of
the organization of TQM and Gaz Métropolitain, etc., etc., why are
they not involved and why not use their corridor, which is already in
existence for this pipeline?

MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):

Provided that corridor leads to United States.

MR. RONALD OWEN:

MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):

If that is the market.

MR. RONALD OWEN:

It does. It crosses the border near Stanhope.

MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):

MR. RONALD OWEN:

MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):

Which would be, therefore, a possibility, to your knowledge...

MR. RONALD OWEN:

I don't see why not, and I would think it would have less of an
impact on what we are opposing, if that corridor were used.

MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):

Thank you, Mr. Owen.

Mr. Owen, thank you for your presentation. MR. RONALD OWEN:

You are welcome.

And now, I will call Mr. Jean-Guy Tremblay and Ms. Jacinthe
Baillargeon.

MR. JEAN-GUY TREMBLAY:

Good evening, I am representing Jacinthe Baillargeon this
evening. This evening, just as I was leaving home, the two youngest
of our four children said to us, 'Good luck papa, we're behind you.
We've just arrived from the National park in the Mauricie, where
people are aware and educated about all kinds of environmental
phenomena, thanks to the naturalists, such the importance of not
getting out of the canoes and getting up on islands, and therefore
causing all kinds of issues which are very relevant to the building of
the pipeline, and I think it's clear that children are not going to be
able to participate in this kind of evening, but I think this whole
generation coming up, who are much more aware than we are presently on
environmental issues, for instance like the disappearance of the great
white pines.

The government said, 'Oh yes, we are going to go and cut those
down', and now we are confronted with the issue of a pipeline passage.

Concerning the pipeline, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Commissioners,
thank you very much for giving us a chance of sharing our point of
view and our concerns concerning the construction of the TQM pipeline.
We are going to use the term 'promoter' in order to designate the
Société Gazoduc Trans-Québec et Maritimes Inc, Gazoduc TQM, which has
proposed the extension and the construction of the natural gas
pipeline towards the United States.

It's possible the technical terms and the speeds and the
distances mentioned are not exact in our text, but we hope, however,
that you get the basic ideas and our fundamental objections will
nevertheless get across. This text is without prejudice.

As concerns us, landowners in Ste-Catherine d'Hatley, beside the
Highway 55 South, and having a right-of-way with no access on 15 acres
of our land to this highway, we are certainly not very happy about the
arrival of the TQM pipeline close to our property.

In fact, even if the passage of this part of the corridor is not
going to pretty well not even touch our land, how can we live
peacefully with all the heavy traffic running just in front of our
property and the all-terrain vehicles and the snowmobiles on the
right-of-way of the eventual pipeline behind us?

It is absolutely unimaginable and unacceptable. In fact, it's
not so much the pipeline itself, but it's the repercussions of its
construction so close to us, and the use that might be made of it by
snowmobiles and all terrain vehicles users which concerns here so
much. We must consider that this permanent right-of-way will leave a
scar of 23 metres wide in the land so close to us.

In addition, for the promoter, the important separation of the
pipeline, about four angles, more or less 90 degrees, in order to go around
our property, would lead to supplementary costs, as we mentioned in
the first part of these hearings; if from Montreal to the United
States, there is going to have to be 400 such zigzags, this will lead
to a non-negligible resistance and certainly problems for the system.

In a pipeline construction we often find more than one break in
a junction of the angles due to the friction, even when these are
assembled in a straight line. Given the consequences of the
installation of the pipeline close to us is going to come and destroy
the calm and the peace with the passage of the all-terrain vehicles
and snowmobiles, we are totally opposed to the construction of the
pipeline close to the west side of Highway 55.

Even if the promoter hasn't yet proven that he could use another
corridor, as far as we are concerned, amongst the three or four
alternative routes which are envisioned in the sector, only the
following alternatives could be tolerated, but they are not to be
encouraged: that is the passage of the pipeline in the central right-
of-way of Highway 55, because there is such a wide boulevard in the
middle. That would help us to keep a clear field of vision and this
would be a right-of-way that should be well maintained in the future.

This is a solution which has been put forward by the
municipality of Ste-Catherine d'Hatley, or the passage of the pipeline
on the other side, the east side of the highway where nobody ever
goes.

However, in consequence, the visual impact of this last
alternative would come to totally scar the countryside close to the
highway and our picturesque region would certainly suffer in terms of
its tourist mission.

Taking into account that the past generations have already
conceded rights-of-way for highways, roads, hydroelectric lines,
pipelines, and these zones have become what they call collective and
public use areas, why once again ask these people to concede all the
rights on their land, and why at this time not use the rights-of-way
of the existing infrastructures?

In order to demonstrate that we are trying to be cooperative in
terms of this project, only the alternative of using the central
right-of-way of Highway 55 could be tolerated but not encouraged by
us, and this could perhaps be the basis for a compromise which would
be minimally acceptable.

Have we foreseen the worst? During the first part of the public
hearings the promoter was confronted with the question of the passage
of the pipeline close to the factories which produce dangerous
chemical products and liquid hydrogen, that is to say close to Highway
55 and the Magog River.

Without being an expert in the field and without hoping the
worst, have we actually thought what is going to happen if the
pipeline breaks at this precise point? It's going to be barely 60
metres away from the liquid hydrogen reservoir and the loading
stations of the trucks and the air pipes which join the two factories
in question.

If the section that is situated between 8 to 25 kilometres from
each other, this might take an important period of time before the
natural gas can escape and be consumed. The fire would certainly have
enough time to cause great damage to the surrounding area and probably
cause an explosion of the liquid hydrogen tank.

Remember - was it the Columbia or the Challenger space ship
flight which exploded in midair? Can you imagine what would happen to
the five or ten kilometres around Magog, with its population of 12,500
inhabitants so close. In consequence, the possibility of building the
TQM pipeline close to the liquid hydrogen factory, which is close to
Highway 55 and the Magog region, is something which is to be
absolutely and clearly avoided.

By only presenting a single proposal for a corridor the promoter
certainly hasn't proven that he could use others. Why in the Granby
and Montreal region, the promoter made sure that there was a margin of
manoeuvre of about 67 kilometres wide in order to find one or more
alternatives, where in our region the corridor has been reduced to its
minimum, limiting, therefore, enormously the possibilities of
alternatives.

The promoter has not planned to go around Mont Orford Park,
although they had very good reason to do so because his has to deliver
his resource material to Asbestos. In addition, the operating income
from the Magnola project would certainly pay the extra cost caused by
the extension of the pipeline in this region, and therefore we would
manage to go around the Sherbrooke region and afterwards choose the
right-of-way of the Hydro-Québec interconnection towards the United
States.

On the other hand, the promoter has not demonstrated, beyond all
reasonable doubt, that he could use the existing right-of-way of the
present pipeline between Waterloo and Highwater in order to avoid the
Magog/Orford region. Past generations have conceded rights-of-way in
zones which have now since become public and are still useful to the
whole of the Quebec collectivity.

Why go and try to install new such zones of rights-of-way? Mr.
President, Mr. Commissioners, we sincerely believe that the promoter
has not proven that he could use other corridors than that of
Memphremagog MRC, therefore we are opposed to the passage of the TQM
pipeline in the Magog/Orford region where the recreation and tourism
mission is the predominant mission.

The promoter is proceeding by stages and is not saying the whole
truth and is not exposing everything concerning its investment
projects in terms of long-term capital investment in our region,
because the promoter has already started to approach one of our
neighbours in order to eventually purchase part of that person's land
in order to build a compression station, and we believe, therefore,
it's not only a 24 inch pipeline which the promoter intends to build,
but probably several others, and that bothers us and it is certainly
very worrisome for the future generation of our children.

The TQM PipeLine is not in the right place in the Magog/Orford
tourist region because it will create a negative visual impact in the
picturesque landscape of the Eastern Townships. In order to
demonstrate its good faith, the promoter should open its books and
disclose all its plans for the whole of its project in order that we
can examine their present and future intentions, when you are going to
have to judge the relevance of saying yes or no to the whole pipeline
project in this beautiful region.

The promoter is not saying everything about his projects for
long-term capital investment in our region. In presenting only the
first phase of its project, the promoter is trying to, we think,
minimize the impact of a much greater of overall nature project.

In conclusion, the consequences of the building of a pipeline
close to our home would totally destroy the calm because of the
passage of snowmobiles and all terrain vehicles. Considering that only
the alternative of using the central right-of-way of Highway 55 for
the passage of the pipeline is a compromise which is minimally
acceptable, because we have to totally and absolutely avoid the
building of a pipeline close to the liquid hydrogen factory along the
west side of Highway 55.

Considering that the promoter has not proven that he couldn't
use other corridors other than that of Memphramagog and MRC,
considering that the promoter is using a stage-by-stage proposal in
his process here, and that his project could have major negative
impacts on the recreation and on the tourist mission of our beautiful
region, considering the worries and the concerns and fears that we may
have, considering the whole of the project, we are radically opposed
to the building of the TQM pipeline in the region of the Memphremagog
MRC.

We hope that our point of view, and as well that of all the
landowners concerned, the property owners concerned, will be given
proper consideration.

Thank you very much for your presentation. In the first part of
your brief you mention that it's not the pipeline as such which causes
a problem, but the fallout on establishments which are close to the
pipeline and the use that snowmobillers and all terrain vehicle owners
will make of the passage.

If it's not a pipeline that we are going to talk about building,
does this mean that, in your opinion, it's possible to control
measures and [inaudible] to eliminate, or in some way certainly
reduce, the fact that this is going to be a corridor for snowmobillers
and all-terrain vehicles?

MR. JEAN-GUY TREMBLAY:

I'm not looking for alternative solutions at this point. I
think it might have been useful for our generation but eventually,
with all these fences and prohibitions and these various forms of
leisure time activity, which are motorized, there is nothing we can do
to stop that, and if you put yourself in the position of the fact that
it's a highway in front of our front door and just behind in the back,
there are these famous vehicles.

I don't know, if it was you, Mr. President, if you would accept
that you are living in a zone where 500 feet away - in the front, we
can't make the garden any bigger, and in the back, we can't either.

So it becomes the pipeline itself which is the problem.

MR. JEAN-GUY TREMBLAY:

Well, yes, that's clear. The pipeline doesn't seem to bother
people. I'm not an expert. If we are going to use those documents, and
there are people who say that they were disturbed, they were bothered
by it; that seems to be the answer.

You've mentioned the fact, you're talking about scars, you're
talking about the angles they're going to be build the pipeline
network [inaudible] and the effect it's going to have on the safety of
the pipeline. Do you think that the correction which can be envisaged
on the level of the harmonization of the visual elements, that there
is an acceptable compromise [inaudible] because the wounding is often
a question of perception?

You said a while ago that the... I'm under the... ski lift did
not become very current, and I think nobody today thinks that the
downhill skiing paths in fact are scars on Mont Orford.

MR. JEAN-GUY TREMBLAY:

You know, I am a great enthusiast, I love downhill skiing, I
have skied for 25 years, but I would say that yes, the downhill ski
slopes are, in fact, a scar on Mont Orford. If you remember that
there's this deviation in order to avoid our property... I'll try to
explain this to you, if I get too close to you without touching you, I
am touching your whole being, and this famous infrastructure, even by
getting too close to you, it's going to touch us enormously. It's
going to influence, etc. You're going to say, 'Oh, he's very
flighty...'

No, I understand what you are saying. You associate this
presence, what we would call, in terms of a human being, his bubble of
personal conscious.

MR. JEAN-GUY TREMBLAY:

It's not aesthetic what's being proposed, in our case, and what
I want to point out is that if ever this was going to be approved, the
ministries are going to have to have to talk to [inaudible] it's going
to have to be approved, as well, and the Transport Ministry, they're
going to have to talk to each other and make sure that they do
something, or if nothing is done, then we just simply ... it bothers
the private sector as much as the public sector; but they are paid to
do that. It's not encouraged, but it is tolerated.

MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):

Just to ask a fundamental question, this whole question of why
we can't use the existing infrastructures represents very well, I
think sums up the problem of the localization of this pipeline. We are
confronted with this question and we are going to have to think very,
very hard about the issue.

Mr. Tremblay, thank you for your brief. It was a well structured
brief with a title, a development and a conclusion for each one of the
five points that you talked to us about.

MR. JEAN-GUY TREMBLAY:

Mr. Jacques Lessard who is representing Mr. Paulin Quirion.

MR. JACQUES LESSARD, (representing Paulin Quirion):

Good evening, Mr. President, Mr. Commissioners. As has been
mentioned, I am the representative of Mr. Paulin Quirion, who is a
property owner affected by the project which is being examined here,
and, as well, I am addressing you as a forest engineer who is
extremely concerned with the protection of the environment.

Mr. Paulin Quirion acquired his property ten years ago. This
property has a total area of 110 acres and it is situated in a sector
very close to urban dwellers who want to come and settle in the
country.

The topography of this land allows them to have extraordinary
points of view and lookouts. Mr. Quirion had a area of an acre and a
half cleared out in order to build there. We also find a source of
drinking water in this dezoned area. In addition, reforestation is
very important for my client, he has planted 25,000 trees on his
property, in addition to the several thousands which were already
there when he bought the property. He has also carried out a great of
work in his forest.

If we want to file all of the chronological order into the
calendar of activities of the project, we want to submit to you the
problems that we have seen, we want to present our requests,
suggestions or recommendations for each point.

First of all, information for the public: The local population
often hadn't been sufficiently advised and people had the impression
that everything was decided beforehand. We ask that the promoter
informs the property owners who are affected much more, and, in
addition, the local population.

Negotiations with the Eastern Townships Farmers Federation: The
problem is the promoter negotiated at the very beginning of the
project with the Fédération des Producteurs Agricoles de l'Estrie, and
they have agreed on certain rates of compensation. During the whole of
the...

We consider that the rates of compensation don't take into
account the reality, and compared to all... they're going to only have
temporary... well, the people who simply live there or the vacation
people are going to have temporary losses, where people who have
workloads are going to have permanent losses.

People are convinced this project is not going to make any
contribution to local development, and is, in fact, going to have very
unpleasant consequences. We think that the optimal right-of-way should
go through the agricultural area where the impact is going to be less
or should use the same route as the highways.

Concerning the various expropriations: The problem is that the
promoter is skipping stages and is acting as though he had obtained
all the necessary approvals. We would hope that the promoter would
respect these stages and will wait to have all the necessary approvals
before moving on to the next stage. In this way he will demonstrate to
us the fact that he is serious and is prepared to play by the game.

Concerning the property rights: The problem is that several of
the property owners complain about the presence of intruders on their
property. We consider that it would be normal that the promoter meet
all the landowners who are affected, and ask them for written
permission to circulate on their property. It would also be normal
that the property owners be advised of the presence of workers on
their property.

Concerning the legal land surveying: The problem is that the
provisory plans are prepared before it reaches the land surveying.
There we would ask the land surveying be done in order that we can
clearly know where each person's property starts and ends, Mr.
Quirion's and Mr. Curtis', as well. We notice that the park area
seems to be very close to the water edge, and perhaps it's important
to have a fence in order to prevent the wandering around of intruders.

The problem is that these mature maple groves are going to be
permanently damaged, we think, by the arrival or the passage of the
pipeline. We think that the fact they use the highways or already
existing rights-of-way would allow us to minimize the permanent losses
and would also at least have a negative impact on the aesthetic
landscape in the region.

Concerning the resources: The problem is that the impact at the
forest level are much more significant. Given that the Eastern
Townships Farmers' Union negotiated the fact that a benefit of $750 to
$900 would be given and an agricultural landowner is going to receive
something between $1,000 and 2,000. We notice that the project is
constantly changing, in terms of its mission and its land, and this is
going to create, in fact, unproductive surface land.

The same point applies to our optimal usage of the territory. We
have to try to not multiply the number of unproductive corridors.
Agricultural land is going to continue to produce, whereas forest
areas are losing this mission. It's important to remember that Mr.
Quirion's property already has four rights-of-way, two from Hydro-
Québec, one from Bell Canada, and others [inaudible]. We want to
bring together all these services in order to avoid the fragmenting,
the chipping away of the territory, therefore the depreciation of the
lands affected.

The problem is that the experts say there would be no
depreciation of the lands near the pipeline has created a climate of
uncertainty in the local population, and the request for lands close
to the pipeline has gone down, and will go down. We notice that the
compensations, which are offered, take into account the [inaudible].

Concerning the damage to the springs and the water table: People
are very worried about the fact that damage may appear several years
after the excavation and the dynamiting activities. We would ask that
the promoter be extremely careful, or perhaps can go and stand on
those lands and he should measure perhaps the quality and the speed
of the spring water before they start their work.

During construction, people are worried that the project's
employees are going to continue to act independently. As you were
saying, Mr. President, yesterday, the left hand doesn't know what the
right hand is doing, something which you have often deplored, so I
would judge that during the time of construction, an emergency number
should be available at all times, and a good communication network
should, in fact, connect all the teams of employees who are working in
order to avoid possible catastrophes.

Concerning the emergency plan: The population was worried
before because it was totally unknown. The promoter hasn't reassured
them by saying that during the weekends the emergency calls are going
to be transferred to the Western region of Canada.

The promoter is going to have to take the responsibility of
structuring an effective emergency plan. In addition, we know that
they have to establish a permanent system of local emergency problems.
We know that the promoter has to take the responsibility of supplying
all the reassuring elements immediately.

Concerning the teams: The population will remain... They
denounced, rather, the back-up equipment which is necessary in order
to combat eventual catastrophes. The local population is worried and
fears the increase in taxes, and therefore we would ask that the
employer supply the equipment or the money necessary to buy the
equipment. It would be good to see a grouping of several
municipalities in order to increase their effectiveness and reduce
their costs, and before... as for using the municipality's equipment.

Concerning the lack of training of the staff people in the
municipalities: The volunteer firemen don't necessarily have the
training to fight against a gas fire, so we are going to have to give
this training to all the personnel who is here and carry on a yearly
follow-up. [inaudible] the responsibility of the promoter, and the
landowners who have been affected perhaps want to be reassured by
that, so we would therefore ask that the Contracts of Agreement
contain clauses stipulating that the promoter assumes the risks and
will pay any damages caused us directly by the gazoduc.

Concerning the payment of real estate taxes or land taxes: The
forest owners will continue to pay taxes on a certain area which is
not producing anymore, so if the project is going through a wooded
area, then the promoter would take into account the areas which are
not producing any more.

In conclusion, we would like to hope that if the project is, in
fact, carried out, that your commission will take into account our
demands and recommendations, and we also hope that this project is
going to be carried out in the mutual respect of everybody concerned,
and with a mutual respect of the beautiful countryside of our region.
Thank you very much for your attention.

Thank you for your presentation. Your conclusion, I think,
corresponds to what The Commission wants, that all the exchanges and
the communication takes place in a climate of mutual respect. Thank
you for having presented your brief by themes, where you state the
problem and then you give recommendations and the possible solutions
to be explored.

You indicate that the promoter is skipping stages and is acting
as if they had already received the go-ahead, and that upsets the
owners. Can you outline the stages or steps that have been skipped,
and how this practice can upset the landowners?

MR. JACQUES LESSARD:

Well, in my mind, the permission for carrying out this project -
well, your Commission has not yet given its approval, so the promoter
should not go and meet landowners to have them sign an agreement
immediately, I mean, unless they are sure that the project is going to
go ahead. That is mainly what I'm talking about when I said this.
That's what I was referring to.

Well, you know that our Commission makes recommendations to the
Minister of Environment and he submits his proposed decision to the
Cabinet, and it's the Cabinet that decides finally, so on that point
it was mentioned that these options, that are in accordance with the
National Energy Board Act, would be lost if the project doesn't go
ahead, so the promoter is taking a chance, and that was the answer
that was given.

Now, you indicate with respect to the maple groves that there is
choice made in favour of producing trees rather than those that will
be potentially productive trees. Since you are a forest engineer, is
that a bad choice? Should we actually favour potential maple trees
rather than those that are actually producing right now?

MR. JACQUES LESSARD:

No, I can't say that it's a bad choice because of the trees that
are producing right now, most of them have stems that can regenerate,
i.e. that would ensure future production, continued production in
these areas. I can't say that it's a bad choice.

However, it is deplorable that next to a maple grove, there
could be a tree that has little stems that could produce later, and
they are saving, so to speak, the mother to crush the children. I
don't know if I can say that.

Okay. Now, with respect to the market value of the lands that
would be affected, you point out that a climate of uncertainty reduces
demand for the lands and could have an effect on the market value, if
I understood your point of view.

Now, could we imagine that once the pipeline is buried and
installed, that the entire environment will be stabilized, that these
concerns would disappear and that the demand would be reinstated.

MR. JACQUES LESSARD:
No, that's not what I wanted to say. My point had to do mainly
with lands for residential purposes. Even if the pipeline is buried,
the demand should normally not be... there shouldn't be a very large
demand for lands that are close to the pipeline because people would
know that. Everybody has a choice, let's say, between a land in the
countryside that is 300 metres from a gas line, a pipeline, or on
another land that is three kilometres from a pipeline, I think they
would prefer to pay more for a land that is further from the pipeline.

Thank you. You are proposing an original formula here: an
emergency number available at all times during the construction, and
good communication between the teams. In practice, how would you see
this happening? Who would be answering when -
let's say there's a number published, who would answer when the phone
rings and what would happen?

MR. JACQUES LESSARD:

Well, maybe a dispatcher who would be able to answer all calls
and the dispatcher will be able to reach the teams that are out in the
field, and now with cellular phones and all that, we don't... and with
portable radios, there shouldn't be any problem in terms of the
different teams communicating. This is just to make sure that there
is optimum efficiency in terms of communications, so to avoid any
disaster.

And if there is an owner who has any concerns, who needs
information, all these people would be able to communicate and the
answers would be provided.

So your proposal is that there will be a number that would be
made public, and through that number you will be able to reach the
proper team out in the field, is that what you're saying?

MR. JACQUES LESSARD:

Absolutely. That there will be one number, one central location
where information will be provided, general information, or who could
reach the teams out in the field or those responsible from the
promoter's side. People would have more information than the person
who is at the phone centre.

Thank you. You also propose that the promoter supply emergency
equipment to the municipalities. There have already been some
overtures in that regard on the part of the promoter, and there have
been precedents also. For example, the Société d'Assurance Automobile
provides certain equipment to the municipalities under certain
conditions, but what kind of equipment do you have in mind? Are we
talking about heavy equipment? Equipment for firefighters; what?

MR. JACQUES LESSARD:

Well, I'm not a specialist in that area, but what I am saying is
with the owner that I am working with, all I'm saying is that
normally, when there is an element of risk, when somebody - or a
promoter adds an element of risk in an area, he should be able to add
something in terms of an insurance.

If you buy a car, you buy insurance for the car, because you
can't have accidents if you don't have a car. In other words, the
equipment that they need, I can't tell what the equipment would be;
would it require a truck, a specialized truck? I don't know, but I
just wanted to point out logic and the principle. I don't have any
specific equipment in mind.

Thank you. Mr. Paré?

MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):

Thank you, Mr. President. You have asked a lot of questions that
came to mind upon reading Mr. Lessard's presentation, but the first
point, when you say that the promoter should provide more information
to the population affected and the local population, you're not the
first one to have deplored some loopholes in the information process.

Now, are you saying that for this particular project, at this
point time, that we should set up new mechanisms for providing
information, or do you think that with the BAPE hearings, part of this
information is now available. is this the suggestion that you are
making for the future?

MR. JACQUES LESSARD:

Well, in the current project, I believe we are already into the
process, but the public and the population, okay, they are informed,
but as the person who spoke before me said, it's an opportunity we
have to be able to stress our point of view before your Commission,
and I have followed this particular order in my presentation, but with
respect to that point, we can't go back.

Given the stage we are at with the project right now, I think
the people who had to be informed have been informed and the
municipalities also.

MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):

What you are saying is in the future it should be done
differently and in more detail?

MR. JACQUES LESSARD:

Yes, so that we don't have people coming to make comments that
they had the impression that they were trying to pull a fast one on
them. It's just to avoid such problems in the future.

MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):

Coming back to a question which you answered when the President
was talking to you, you were talking about the loss of value of the
lands. You said that compensation should take into account the lands
that are about 350 metres from the proposed line. My question is, I
imagine that Mr. Quirion's property is beyond that distance. Are you
saying that, in your mind, that is pretty much the distance that you
feel that the presence or the negative impact of the pipeline should
be felt?

MR. JACQUES LESSARD:

No, I pointed out this distance because that's the distance
separating the location, the dezoned area on Mr. Tremblay's property,
between that and the pipeline, the proposed pipeline. I can't say that
a land that is below 350 metres should have... that the value should
be lost and another one that is beyond 350 should not. I don't have
any studies saying that there is a demarkation beyond 350 or below
350.

All I wanted to say was that there should take, particularly for
residential land, they should take into account the loss of value,
because, as I said before, people who have a choice between two
properties, one that is close to a pipeline and the other which isn't,
in a free market that we have, I think the property that's further
from the pipeline will be sold before and perhaps at a much higher
price.

MR. JEAN PARÉ, (Commissioner):

And the dezoning that you're talking about is dezoning by The
Commission for the protection of the farmland? Okay. In the dezoned
portion, was it done only to allow Mr. Quirion to build his house or
to do other lots for residential developments?

MR. JACQUES LESSARD:

No, he plans to set up his home there later. It's a request he
made to The Commission for the protection of the farmland because he
wanted to go and set up his home there, and not to have any
residential development there.

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):

Good evening, Mr. Lessard. You work in the forestry area in East
Hereford. You have been doing this for a few years?

MR. JACQUES LESSARD:

In the Eastern Townships, for the past four years.

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):

We know that a good - well, maybe 80% or so of the product would
be forwarded to the U.S. market, while the justification is to supply
energy to companies who have no paper mills, wood processing
companies, companies associated with the wood industry. Now, in East
Hereford or - well, say the possible arrival of a pipeline could have
a positive impact in the forestry area in general.

MR. JACQUES LESSARD:

It would be desirable - I mean, I would say that if you take
something like Industries Lauzon, which is in East Hereford, if they
got their power from natural gas and that reduced their production
costs or increased their productivity, I don't know, maybe you can
imagine them hiring ten more employees, well that would be a
favourable spinoff for the sector, perhaps also a favourable setting
up of new industries because the pipeline is in their area.

That would be desirable, but right now, what is deplorable is
that the pipeline doesn't seem to be designed to distribute gas, and
its purpose is only to transmit gas from Montreal to the U.S.

That's a technical part which I can't give you any more details
about, but to answer your question, it would be desirable for this
project to have spinoffs in the region.

MR. CHARLES CLOUTIER, (Commissioner):

THE CHAIRMAN:
Thank you very much, Mr. Lessard for your presentation. You are
the last presenter tonight.

This is bring us to the rectification period. Mr. Jean
Trudelle?

MR. JEAN TRUDELLE:

Mr. President, Mr. Commissioners, two rectifications. At some
point it was indicated that the existing pipes of the Montreal
pipeline could be used to transmit gas to the United States. I should
just point out that this Montreal pipeline or the Portland PipeLine
has indicated that it would use its pipeline for the transmission of
oil, so that pipe is not available.

Another rectification, they talk about the different widths of
wood tree cutting. I should confirm that the width is 18 metres, and
not 23 metres or the 100 feet that was mentioned. That's it.

Thank you. This bring us to the end of our session. Thank you
very much for your attention. The Commission continues its work
tomorrow at the Centre Jean Bosco on Sherbrooke Street in Magog. Thank
you and goodnight.

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

C E R T I F I C A T E

I, PHYLLIS MARKOFF, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, duly sworn as such, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and faithful transcription
of the evidence through interpretation, the whole in accordance with
the law, AND I HAVE SIGNED:

PHYLLIS MARKOFF, O.C.R.

Go to BAPE Verbatims Index

Go to Pipeline Blues Index