Territorial planning is a fundamental mission of any modern state. It is based on two pillars: land use planning and land development. Land use planning is a set of guidelines and measures intended to ensure orderly, harmonious, balanced development of inhabited spaces and respectful of the natural and built environment. Territorial development is, for its part, made up of a set of measures likely to stimulate the economic, social and demographic dynamics of the territories in compliance with the planning policy and the imperatives of sustainable development. Planning and development are thus closely intertwined.
A few months after his victory on 1er October 2018, the Legault government entrusted its Minister for Regional Economic Development, Marie-Eve Proulx, with the mandate to develop a Local and Regional Economic Development Strategy (SDÉLR). She was assisted by an advisory committee* made up of experts in the field, and the work continued until May 2021, i.e. until the resignation of the minister. Although the responsibilities of M.me Proulx have been transferred to other ministers, including the current Minister of Economy and Innovation, Pierre Fitzgibbon, the SDÉLR project has disappeared from the CAQ’s agenda.
A few months earlier, on January 27, 2021, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Andrée Laforest, had launched a “Great National Conversation” with a view to preparing a National Planning and Development Strategy. of the territory (SNUAT), title which will change later for that of National policy of architecture and planning of the territory (PNAAT). A committee of external experts* has been created to support the reflection and work associated with this project.
The PNAAT is expected to be unveiled in the coming weeks.
Failure of the Regional Development Strategy
The resignation of Minister Marie-Eve Proulx in May 2021 was followed by the abandonment of the SDÉLR project. This is a regrettable failure that sees the regions’ hopes of freeing themselves from the position of unloved children stemming from the Couillard and Charest governments vanish. The hope of benefiting from a specific intervention framework and an action plan with a vision and strong guidelines for the development of the regions, which was intended to define the Local Economic Development Strategy and regional (which could have evolved into a national policy).
The third link as a driver of regional development?
Then came the third link project in this context of reflection on land use planning and regional development. Although having no serious study to support the option of a double under-river highway tunnel between the city centers of Quebec and Lévis, and contrary to all scientific advice, the Minister of Transport, François Bonnardel, has no embarrassment to declare that this third link:
1. Will stimulate the development of eastern Quebec, which the mayors of the region have categorically rejected as a hypothesis;
2. Will not generate urban sprawl, but rather “revitalization and rebalancing” in the eastern crown of Lévis;
3. And that this “rebalancing” is in the order of things because “densification is only a fashion”.
The government’s plea in favor of the third link is becoming more and more zany, disconnected from reality and in flagrant contradiction with the major objectives of the National Architecture and Regional Planning Policy.
For an authentic regional development policy
An ambitious local and regional development policy would be based on a solidly affirmed will from the government, backed up by a clear vision, precise guidelines and substantial budgets, which would engage the ministries concerned in a veritable revolution of the territories outside the major centres.
Such a policy would be structured around the following elements:
1. Adoption of a multipolar development model to counter the economic and demographic hyperconcentration of the metropolitan communities of Montreal and Quebec;
2. Consolidation of the network of small and medium-sized towns in the region to increase their attractiveness and their competitive capacity;
3. Recognition of the growing interest of businesses, workers and families for settling in the regions;
4. Revaluation of rural territories;
5. New stage of decentralization to increase the administrative and financial autonomy of local authorities and thus release their capacity to act;
6. Reinforcement of the structure of MRCs which appears to be the right level of efficiency for local governance, governance shared with local municipalities;
7. Strategy for deploying economic and demographic growth between the central regions and the intermediate and peripheral regions for a better territorial balance;
8. Increased preservation of natural and agricultural environments;
9. Application of the principles of sustainable development and the fight against climate change.
In short, a local and regional development policy in line with recent and current developments: dematerialization of large parts of the economy, digital revolution, rise in telework, expansion of employment pools, ecological transition, food autonomy, quest for a better quality of life and an exodus from the big cities, as evidenced by interregional migration.
* The author of this text was a member of the advisory committee and the committee of experts.