Lessons learned after Victoriaville backs off on its canopy charge for residents

Victoriaville, Que. set to preserve and expand its current tree canopy through a series of charges, including penalizing developers who cut down trees, and one that would charge residents whose yards had less than 30 per cent coverage by a tree canopy in their yard.

The first change stuck. The second one, not so much.

However, not all is lost, and there are lessons to be learned, say the experts behind the idea.

@futureofgood Lessons learned after this Quebec City backs off its tree fee. #Quebec #Canada #Trees #nonprofitsoftiktok ♬ original sound – Future of Good

How it began

In January of 2025 and in February 2026, Victoriaville implemented regulatory charges to protect its tree canopy.

“The amount collected from a regulatory charge does not fund the City’s operations like a tax would; it is allocated to a dedicated fund. In this case, the revenues will finance canopy coverage,” said Jean-Philippe Lemay, a lawyer for environmental non-profit SNAP Quebec who contributed to the design of Victoriaville’s canopy charge.

The first part of the regulatory charge said any developer seeking a permit to build units in Victoriaville pays a $25 charge for every square metre of tree canopy they cut down. A year later, this charge remains.

However, in February of this year, the city implemented a new charge based on the proportion of tree canopy in homeowners’ yards.

A citizen with less than 30 per cent coverage would pay an annual charge of $12 to $38, and a business would pay $110 to $815, depending on the coverage.

Victoriaville administration faced a massive uproar and media backlash; it backtracked and changed the canopy charge to a voluntary contribution. 

Citizens and organizations have until March 31 to request that the City remove the charge from their tax account.

While the February canopy charge was a first for a Canadian city,  the 30 per cent threshold is a common metric for canopy coverage, and many Canadian mayors have pledged to reach it. 

It is part of the 3-30-300 rule for urban forests, as suggested by Cecil Konijnendijk, cofounder of the Nature-Based Solutions Institute.

Every citizen should see at least three decent-sized trees from their home, neighbourhoods should have at least 30 per cent canopy cover, and the nearest high-quality public green space should be within 300 metres of a resident’s home, according to Konijnendijk.

Although the benefits of urban forests are gaining mainstream acceptance, planting new trees and preserving existing ones remain challenging.

Eco-fiscal tools come in three formats: taxes, fees, and regulatory charges.

For example, Montreal imposes a parking lot tax on non-residential, commercial, and industrial parking spaces to encourage urban density and discourage reliance on cars.

Kitchener citizens pay a stormwater fee based on their property size and the water runoff generated by their property. Fees are based on the service used.

Climate storytelling blindspot: belonging

A few years ago, Victoriaville held a public consultation on sustainable development to identify citizens’ environmental priorities, and canopy coverage came out as a top concern, said Lemay.

“It can be daunting for cities right now,” said Jorge Garza, director of Networks for Change at the Tamarack Institute for Community Engagement, which advocates for advancing local climate action and equity.

Citizens say they desire green initiatives, but resist making a direct financial contribution, added Garza. 

“This work from the City of Victoriaville is part of the education awareness; it has to happen so we learn something.”

“Climate and environmental action is about crafting honest and slow storytelling,” said Diego Creimer, senior business development advisor at Nature Action Québec.

Creimer is a veteran of climate literacy, having worked for Greenpeace and the David Suzuki Foundation. He also collaborated on implementing the Victoriaville canopy charge while serving as director of finance and biodiversity at SNAP.

Climate and environmental storytelling is centred on explaining issues and solutions and linking them through impact, said Creimer. 

However, setbacks and resistance to climate public policies might suggest blind spots, added Garza.

“We need to work on belonging. Communities feel like they are viewed as passive service recipients,” he said.

The Tamarack Institute has conducted consultations on what belonging could look like and how it could contribute to future public policies. 

Garza and his colleagues concluded that considering belonging in climate action and other movements could be a game-changer in how people understand their role in the climate transition and the climate justice movement.

“Residents are often treated as individuals who need to participate from 6 to 9 in a public consultation, and then that’s it,” said Garza.

“You can be invited to a party, but it does not mean that people are going to be like, ‘Oh my God, here is Jorge!’ Belonging is created when you get to know the person, noticing what they said in a consultation and missing their voice when they are absent,” he added.

The Tamarack Institute uses the Wheel of Engagement to uncover the attendees’ views and expectations at workshops and consultations. When presented with a project, a citizen can be interested, supportive, involved or at the core of it.

“This allows us to mobilize citizens where they’re at: Do they want to make a donation, join a committee, share their expertise or their network?” said Garza.

Residents can also reject projects and policies, added Benoit Genest, a postdoctoral researcher in public policy and social acceptability at l’ÉNAP (Quebec National School for Public Administration).

“Public policy is not about consensus, it is about reasonable compromise,” said Genest.

Unconditional collaborators, conditional collaborators, and free riders

Any project or policy has its unconditional collaborators, its conditional collaborators, and its free riders, he said. 

Those will always find a way around it, no matter the measure, but they’ll take advantage if there are positive effects for the group, said Genest.

So, how do municipalities and other governments foster a sense of belonging in a community that makes a climate policy compromise possible?

Garza gave the example of Toronto’s fruit harvesting program, Not Far From The Tree. It runs on the financial and physical contributions of three groups: the tree owners, the fruit pickers, and the pick leaders.

The first group registers their trees in the program. The second group registers to pick up the fruits. The third group organizes the fruit-picking sessions. 

The fruits are then divided into three:  one-third for the tree owner, one-third for the pickers, and one-third for local community agencies addressing food insecurity.

Not Far From the Tree’s model is one path to create belonging, said Garza. The group says its mission is “to harness the power of fruit trees to create healthy, resilient, sustainable and connected communities across Toronto.”

Social acceptability is a process, not an outcome

Social acceptability can vary over time, said Genest.

“There can be a situation of open conflict, tensions, and disagreements, followed by the search for compromise,” he added. 

“Acceptability begins with compromise. Then, the mechanisms required to ensure that this compromise becomes increasingly sustainable must be sought.”

Victoriaville administration has options to build acceptability for its canopy charge, said Creimer.

“Next year, it could send a pro-forma invoice to each citizen. The canopy charge would appear on the municipal bill, but it would not be charged. The year after, it could charge a small amount, like one-tenth of the real value, and increase every year,” he added.

Meanwhile, the city would pursue education around the canopy benefits for all.

“A project gains legitimacy if it aligns with objectives at other levels: municipal, regional, and national. This is how you win over the conditional collaborators, those who can be persuaded if others agree,” said Genest.

Group acceptability can tilt the balance.

“When I disagree with someone, I have had moments in which I really disagree with what they’re saying, but it’s okay. I will step back, and I trust what they’re doing is for the common good,” said Garza.Tweet This

Trust is critical to social acceptability, and the current trust deficit in institutions is manifest.

“I also have had moments in which I feel that I just disagree with this person and this group, and I can’t stay quiet. I just don’t trust them; it triggers something in me. We’re in that moment of polarization,” he added.

Acceptability forgotten stakeholder: public servants

Acceptability is most often seen as a process between an institution and its stakeholders, said Genest.

“It is not a two-way process: it is a triangle including the stakeholders, the political and the administrative. We must consider administrative acceptability. Public servants have their own values, habits and routine. They can facilitate public policy or obstruct it,” he added.

Public policies involve three tactics: changing the rules (laws), the ways of doing things (routines), and societal norms, said Genest.

Citizens are used to paying for parking, added Creimer as an example.

“We could say it is a societal norm, but paying for trees is not a given. It could explain why a tax on parking lots gets easier public acceptance than a canopy charge.”

Public servants follow norms, too, and they have routines. There can be conflicts in interests, norms, habits, and attitudes between politicians and public servants. Addressing internal support for public policies is critical.

One way to influence administrative routines is to create a new structure, said Genest. His postdoctoral focus is on the political and administrative interactions regarding mobility policies.

Genest gave the example of the Swedish city of Lund shifting its approach to traffic and city planning from car mobility to accessibility. The goal became to reach one’s destination with ease or within a given travel time.

Lund politicians worked to improve administrative acceptability by establishing a Sustainable Mobility Office.

Studies on the Lund mobility shift show that in new or modified institutions within the city administration, routines and norms gradually change, making certain measures more feasible and institutionalized as part of the city’s standard practices.

“Administrative acceptability is like social acceptability; it is about reasonable, sustainable compromise, not about consensus,” stressed Genest.

What happened with the Victoriaville canopy charge is normal, said Lemay. 

“Eco-fiscal tools are new and complex; it takes time to understand their relevance. The City’s decision to turn it into a voluntary contribution was a cautious approach while pursuing education awareness,” he said.

“It’s about navigating the tension between efficiency and acceptability. The most efficient public policies often gather less support, and the less efficient ones are always the most popular,” concluded Genest.