Opportunity not to be missed

This spring, a minister will have the opportunity to transform Quebec’s territory in an even greater way than Jean Garon and his policy of protecting agricultural land. The principles of his project were adopted this fall, the plan for its implementation will be in a few months. It is on this plan that everything depends. Which minister and which project are we talking about?

Minister Andrée Laforest will table the implementation plan for the National Architecture and Land Use Policy (PNAAT) this spring. The plan is currently the subject of intense discussions in the government. It’s happening now, as they say.

These discussions are crucial for the environment and for our quality of life.

What is this bug?

The PNAAT is quite vast, I will give you only a few examples of what it wants to oversee, everywhere in Quebec. It wants to direct urban growth towards areas already equipped with infrastructure and public services (downtown and village centre), increase the quality of architecture, counter the loss of natural areas and agricultural land, promote transportation assets and public transit, planning territories capable of better adapting to the consequences of climate change, enhancing heritage and landscapes, increasing consideration of the realities of Aboriginal nations, etc. Extensive program.

But it’s all there. In principle.

When the Minister announced the PNAAT, everyone was happy. Even municipal unions. Even businesses. Even real estate developers. It worries me.

There are property developers for whom building well means responding to the market, regardless of the impact on the environment.

There are chambers of commerce for whom free enterprise is more important than the fight against climate change.

There are cities that want to expand their urban perimeter and continue to spread out.

There are citizens for whom protecting the landscape is the equivalent of shoveling clouds.

And everyone was happy with the new Politics? Everyone is waiting for what’s next: the implementation plan.

This is where part of our future is at stake. If this plan doesn’t bother anyone, it won’t fix anything.

What kind of disturbance are we talking about?

For example, the towns and villages of Quebec currently have enough space within their urban perimeter to accommodate at least up to 30 or 40 years of population growth (one million people). Politics must therefore say no, everywhere, all the time, to the opening of the urban perimeter. There are exceptions ? Really saturated places? Damage. People will move elsewhere. That’s what a good implementation plan would say.

It is also necessary that the requirements contained in the plan transform the current growth, often harmful, into positive or restorative growth.

Directing new residents firmly towards town centres, village cores and atmospheric streets means consolidating and improving commercial life, the efficiency of public transport, the dynamism of neighborhood life, etc. And thanks to this density, providing services will cost the city much, much less.

The plan must therefore “force” the towns and villages to rebuild themselves. I agree with municipal autonomy: the Government of Quebec should not decide on the “how”. But on the “what”, we need clear national guidelines: promote density, protect wetlands, agricultural land, etc.

The implementation plan should also require the State to set an example; the Government of Quebec itself must improve its ways of doing things.

It should no longer be able to build a hospital in the open field, as it did in Vaudreuil-Dorion, or authorize the destruction of one of the only heritage buildings on Anticosti Island. An SAQ should no longer be able to settle in a “Smart center” (free translation: stupid shopping center, therefore located on the outskirts of urban areas). The Ministère des Transports should no longer be obsessed with traffic flow, but with the reduction of GHG emissions and pedestrian safety. If it has to build, the government will add beauty to our lives by multiplying architectural competitions. Etc.

Last item. If municipal taxation is not reformed, the new PNAAT could very well be useless. Cities are given responsibilities, but no significant new sources of revenue, so they are looking for it everywhere. If we do not reform the property tax, they will absolutely use all the gray areas to build, build and build again. Adopting a PNAAT without a financial assistance program to give cities the means to apply it and without reforming municipal taxation is like planting a tree next to a sawmill.

The Minister has a unique opportunity to make history. I hope she takes it, for the good of all of us.