Pushed against the wall, the Premier of Ontario closed the door on Friday to the opening of protected lands in Toronto’s “Greenbelt”. Coveted for the construction of desperately needed housing, the area is both a vital lung and pantry to the wider Golden Horseshoe region. This isn’t the first time Doug Ford has made this promise; this time would be the right one, he suggested.
It must be said that the project was not only failing, it was sinking. In an incendiary report, the general audit demolished point by point the need to amputate the “Greenbelt” in order to build 50,000 homes there in response to the housing crisis. Above all, it revealed a rushed process marred by irregularities and favoritism, which was corroborated by the integrity commissioner. Two ministers and two senior officials fell. A real waste.
Beyond this desperate political scandal, the forces that clashed for nearly a year in the shadow of the “Greenbelt” have highlighted a dialogue of the deaf between climate protectors and defenders of the right to housing . When we look at the problem through the lens of the common good, we nevertheless see that we have two objective allies, who will have to be reconciled.
Sensing the deleterious effect of not a double, but a triple crisis (climate, mobility and housing), the Mayors in Action group essentially launched this message last June. His call for a paradigm shift in development places densification and taking advantage of underutilized land at the top of his wish list.
The adoption of the principle of zero sprawl as well as the protection of natural environments are also among its dream projects. From Montreal to Sherbrooke via Quebec, Bécancour, Trois-Pistoles, Joliette and Normandin, there are now nearly sixty elected officials who follow this ideal.
The test of reality can, however, prove thankless, as noted by one of the early signatories, Guy Caron. The mayor of Rimouski is the subject of heavy fire from defenders of a forest located in the Pointe-au-Père district, where the city plans to build 800 new gates. The citizen front believes that this project is a form of urban sprawl that does not speak its name. He urges the City to return to the drawing board to protect an environment deemed essential to the fight against the climate.
There are 2,500 doors missing to reach the equilibrium rate in Rimouski. This is enormous, given that Pointe-au-Père land represents 75% of the municipal land reserve. At Duty Friday, Guy Caron agreed that, without the housing crisis, there would have been no question of developing this remote sector without pre-existing streets or services. But now, the crisis is here, and Rimouski, he explains, has its hands tied by a development plan which does not provide for significant densification in the city center.
It’s a bit short. We can expect other similar questions throughout Quebec. This was already the case in April in the Aylmer sector, where there were concerns about the fate that will be reserved for the Champlain-Voyageurs ecological corridor. In May, it was the fate of the Colonial woodland in Victoriaville that concerned residents. All these conscientious objections raise legitimate questions, which we can no longer avoid.
This is the case these days in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu. The SOS Boisés de la Pinède group is against the supervision of residential construction in the four lots of the pine forest on Sainte-Thérèse Island. Like Mayor Caron, the deputy mayor, Mélanie Dufresne, promised to do what is necessary to limit the footprint and encroach as little as possible on the canopy. At French Canadashe nevertheless pleaded the imperative to find a “balance between development and environment”.
It is essential, of course, but the balance point must move, as we saw recently in Nicolet. Wishing to protect part of the private woodland which would otherwise have been sacrificed entirely for the benefit of the development of Faubourg du Ruisseau, the City expressed the wish to expropriate a portion for the benefit of its citizens. The mayor, Geneviève Dubois, also planned that, if sensitive environments with high added value are identified during the process, these will have to be transformed into parks, public spaces, trails or left in their natural state.
This is enough to inspire elected officials who delude themselves by imagining that they will be able to find this new balance by reproducing the same worn-out formulas without taking the trouble to dust off their dated development plans. Municipalities have a range of new and old powers. Let them use it to develop new eco-responsible models and, in the process, to force the hand of promoters and developers. They too have a duty to embrace this paradigm shift.