This week ended the very short work of the parliamentary committee on Bill 16 on the reform of the Planning and Town Planning Act. I have already told you about the crucial importance of this reform1.
At the time of its tabling, the bill had disappointed by its lack of ambition2. During the commission’s hearings, there were many proposals for improvement. Allow me to present three particularly important ones.
Improvement noh 1: specify the objective
The current Planning and Town Planning Act is a procedural law. It details the rules to be applied to achieve an objective. In the context of land use planning and the climate emergency, we must go further and include objectives directly in the law. For what ? Because our traditional vision of the territory is the main flaw in our development mechanisms.
Even today, the territory is conceived as a space to be “developed”, without linking it to an overall vision, sometimes even without concern for the collective interest. However, a modern vision of development exists: the Government of Quebec has just adopted a National Policy on Architecture and Land Use Planning3. This policy has consensus and represents the vision we need.
By including this policy in the law, or at least by including its principles in a preamble, the government would transform a somewhat mechanical law into a real long-term vision, a vision that would more strictly frame the work of public servants in Quebec as that of local authorities and which would have a better chance of surviving changes of government. When the law is vague, nature rarely does well, so it is important to make it more precise.
Improvement noh 2: the exemplary state
When the State builds a school along a highway, a hospital far from public transport or an SAAQ in vast commercial complexes, far from atmospheric streets, it does not respect its own principles. The bill should do two things: clearly affirm this desire to set an example and appoint a minister who would guarantee it. The Minister of Health, for example, can require his colleagues to adapt their legislation to the health imperatives of the population: the same must be done for regional planning.
Furthermore, the government of Quebec should include a mechanism so that the law also influences the decisions of the federal government. Small example. The post office near my house has been moved from the heart of the district to a peripheral commercial street where you have to drive. This is doing the opposite of common sense. The example should also be federal.
Improvement noh 3: a better balance sheet
The bill establishes a national report on land use planning. This is a major step forward. For the first time, we will have a complete picture of our successes and failures in the field. However, there are three corrections to be made.
The first is that the assessment would for the moment be five years. For indicators such as the density of cities, a review over five years will suffice. For indicators such as the evaluation of natural spaces destroyed or the number of affordable housing units built, the timeframe is far too long. There could be an overall report every five years, but also mid-term reports on certain strategic indicators.
The second necessary correction is on the object of the balance sheet. What will the government take stock of? This is not specified at this time. Adding a preamble to the bill would help to clearly establish the national objectives to be achieved.
The third correction concerns who will do the review. The law provides that the government does it itself. It is a mistake. There should be an independent body, perhaps a group of researchers, which would follow up on the national assessment, formulate recommendations, thus stimulate public debate and make known the best practices in development and urban planning. Our environment deserves this.
The Union of Quebec Municipalities is concerned about the administrative burden of a more frequent assessment for cities. At the risk of offending some friends, I would say that it is in our interest for cities to document their actions in terms of the environment on a regular basis. They are far from flawless in this area, the investment is worth it.
With the current content of this bill, we are far from the “from now on” that many civil society actors wanted. It’s not too late to do well. The next few weeks will tell whether we will have the ambition that our climatically troubled times demand.