As these lines are written, I find myself in Berthier-sur-Mer, savoring the cold breeze of the river and the music of the waves. Feelings of tranquility and appeasement are mixed in me, but also of incomprehension and anger that my journey so far has aroused. To get here, I took the majestic Route des Navigators, between Lévis and Berthier-sur-Mer. I was moved by the beauty of the landscapes it shelters. The St. Lawrence, of course, but also the royal Île d’Orléans to the north, the great fields of Bellechasse to the south. The richness of the architecture dazzled me. From the venerable ancestral houses of Beaumont to the impressive mansions of downtown Lévis and the pretty coastal houses of Saint-Vallier, everything is breathtaking.
My mind unfortunately did not let me peacefully enjoy all this beauty. It was by realizing all the preciousness and fragility of what I was contemplating that came to me, like a painful intrusive thought, the subject of this post: the Quebec-Lévis link.
This idea that the third link and the inexorable urban sprawl that it will engender towards the east could ravage this environment to replace it with residential neighborhoods as far as the eye can see without character, without charm and without trees, repelled me to a so much so that I felt called to react.
I therefore add my drop to this sea of cries of indignation already launched, hoping that all the drops collected can create a swell powerful enough to capsize this liner project carrying an outdated vision.
We are being sold the third link as a project for the future since it will make it possible to energize and grow the region’s economy. In other words, it will increase the gross domestic product (GDP) of the region, of the province. Let’s assume, for the sake of the exercise, that this is true. Its tireless defenders overlook two things. The first: at what price are these gains in economic growth made? The second, even more fundamental in my opinion: should we really base our political and social decisions on economic growth?
The price to pay
The price to pay for this economic growth is staggering. And the worst part is that it is not only counted in the number of hectares of agricultural land destroyed, tons of CO2 issued or expropriated citizens. It is largely indecipherable. It’s a part of the equation that I find too often overlooked.
Is there not an instinct in all of us that tells us that there is something more moral in leaving intact those homes, those fields, those trees, those beasts and those landscapes that form our collective heritage rather than replacing them with asphalt and concrete? Dilute the splendor of the residences of yesteryear in an ocean of grey, sad and identical houses? Obstruct the breathtaking view of Île d’Orléans with condo towers? This piece of our identity has no quantifiable value, it’s true. But it is clearly worth its weight in gold. Sacrificing it in the name of sacrosanct growth without even considering it is negligent.
As for my second question, which is whether it really makes sense to base our political and social decisions on economic growth, I must return to the teachings of Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize in economics and former chief economist of the World Bank. For him, measuring the economic health of a nation by estimating what it produces (what GDP does) is highly flawed. Even Simon Kuznets, creator of the GDP, had warned, as early as 1934, the American Congress against its use to estimate the well-being of the population. The overall health of a population is not measured only in terms of unemployment rates, wages or new constructions. Thus, political decisions of such a wide scope should not be based solely on such arguments.
A perfect indicator for making our public decisions would certainly take purely economic arguments into account, but it would also leave an important place for quality of life, well-being and environmental issues. This is what the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, chaired by Joseph Stiglitz and Amartya Sen, emeritus Indian economist and philosopher, proposed in 2009.
Interestingly, an important determinant of quality of life, physical and mental health is proximity to nature, to green spaces. This is what we learned from a review of the scientific literature conducted by the INSPQ in March 2017. This proximity would notably make it possible to reduce mortality, improve the perception of physical and mental health, reduce stress, anxiety and depressive symptoms. It appears to promote social cohesion, reduce crime, maintain biodiversity and improve environmental justice.
The construction of a highway megastructure, with the resulting destruction of natural environments, would take us in the opposite direction.
It is undeniable, when we analyze the Québec-Lévis link project with this new frame of reference that reserves an important place for maximizing the quality of life and minimizing the environmental impact, we simply cannot come to the conclusion that this is a project for the future. It is time to face the facts, this project cannot support a rigorous and non-partisan analysis.