Bill C-222 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Expropriation Act (protection of private property)

This enactment amends the Expropriation Act to provide that the power of the Governor in Council to waive the requirement for a public hearing in respect of an objection to the intended expropriation of an interest in land or immovable real right may not be exercised in certain circumstances.

Expropriation Act

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

moved that Bill C-222, An Act to amend the Expropriation Act (protection of private property), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I am honoured to rise today to discuss my private member's bill, Bill C-222, an act to amend the Expropriation Act with respect to the protection of private property.

We acknowledge that Parliament is on Algonquin Anishinabe territory, which is subject to an ongoing land claim process.

I am pleased to recognize that the current movement to protect private property landowners' rights in Ontario started in my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. I owe a debt of gratitude to the Renfrew County Private Landowners Association, the Renfrew Landowners Association, and the North Renfrew United Landowners chapters of the Ontario Landowners Association. I thank them for keeping me so well informed on issues of importance to landowners.

There has been a disturbing trend in Canada toward what is referred to as regulatory, de facto or constructive taking of private property. This happens when a government uses its statutory powers to regulate or restrict the property rights of an owner without acquiring the title of the land being adversely affected. The landowner feels the impact of the regulation as though the land had been expropriated.

In the United States, the fifth amendment of the American constitution protects private property rights. In Canada, a government acquisition of land without owners' consent is not subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Private property rights were excluded from the Canadian Constitution when it was repatriated in 1982.

Bill C-222 is concerned with expropriations under federal jurisdiction. At all levels, governments require the power to expropriate private land. Expropriation laws set out a clear step-by-step process to resolve conflicts between private real property rights and the public's need for that same land.

Peter Bowal and Rohan Somers, in “Expropriating Land: A Balancing Act”, wrote:

Governments [should] want to limit expropriations, and approach them carefully and sensitively so as not to be perceived as being unfair or abusive in any way.... [I]n the...majority of cases [that follow the common law], there are...collaborative...negotiations and offers on the part of the public authority behind the scenes in an expropriation. Accordingly, the strict formal steps in the process, including a public hearing, are rarely needed. By far, most expropriations...[are] satisfactory, [with] resolutions on both sides when they are negotiated in good faith in the shadow of the legislative framework.

I will quote Elizabeth Brubaker of Environment Probe, who wrote, “The courts’ long history of strictly construing statutes means that simple legislative changes — in particular, those more clearly defining public purpose — [are] effective in limiting governments’ discretion over expropriation.” Bill C-222 is such a proposal.

In Canada, landowners' rights are found in the expropriation legislation. The government must follow the law as to what land may be expropriated and must observe procedures set out in the legislation. In Canada, the government can strictly regulate land, limiting its value and what a landowner can and cannot do without triggering the procedures in the legislation. That is why it is time to modernize the Expropriation Act.

I introduced Bill C-222 to provide some protections from the government's taking of people's property without notice, a hearing or fair compensation. Private property is defined as property “...over which the owner has exclusive and absolute rights...”. Private property is different from public property. Public property is defined as “state- or community-owned property not restricted to any one individual's use or possession.”

The federal government has the authority to expropriate such property under the act, specifically provincial lands.

By explicitly limiting its scope to private property, the proposed exception in Bill C-222 would allow the federal government to expropriate public property, including provincial lands, for a public purpose that solely relates to the restoration of historical natural habitat or climate variability.

Concerns about climate change must not be used as a cover to confiscate value from private property. Agricultural producers in particular should not be required to subsidize someone else’s environmentalism without compensation. The same must be said for all private property owners.

It would appear that the recently signed Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement on trade addresses the issues raised by my private member's bill, Bill C-222. As a result of signing this trade agreement, it would appear foreign investors in Canadian property are afforded more protection than Canadian owners of Canadian property.

The source of this incoherence is article 1110 of the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, which has been carried over into CUSMA under article 14.8 on expropriation and compensation. Article 14.8 in the new agreement provides:

1. No Party shall expropriate or nationalize a covered investment either directly or indirectly through measures equivalent to expropriation or nationalization (expropriation), except: (a) for a public purpose; (b) in a non-discriminatory manner; (c) on payment of prompt, adequate, and effective compensation in accordance with paragraphs 2, 3, and 4; and (d) in accordance with due process of law.

2. Compensation shall: (a) be paid without delay; (b) be equivalent to the fair market value of the expropriated investment immediately before the expropriation took place (the date of expropriation); (c) not reflect any change in value occurring because the intended expropriation had become known earlier; and (d) be fully realizable and freely transferable.

3. If the fair market value is denominated in a freely usable currency, the compensation paid shall be no less than the fair market value on the date of expropriation, plus interest at a commercially reasonable rate for that currency, accrued from the date of expropriation until the date of payment.

4. If the fair market value is denominated in a currency that is not freely usable, the compensation paid – converted into the currency of payment at the market rate of exchange prevailing on the date of payment – shall be no less than: (a) the fair market value on the date of expropriation, converted into a freely usable currency at the market rate of exchange prevailing on that date; plus (b) interest, at a commercially reasonable rate for that freely usable currency, accrued from the date of expropriation until the date of payment.

5. For greater certainty, whether an action or series of actions by a Party constitutes an expropriation shall be determined in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article and Annex 14-B (Expropriation).

The language here was rolled over from the 1992 NAFTA and it refers to the indirect nationalizing or expropriating of a measure as being tantamount to nationalization or expropriation. The language clearly exists to ensure that compensation will be owed for both de jure and de facto expropriation by the expropriating country.

The scope of article 14.8 is indeed wide. “Measure” includes any law, regulation, procedure, requirement or practice, and the definition of “investment” is expansive. James Beaton, writing in Expropriation without Compensation, states, “Moreover, there is no allowance, as there is in Canadian common law, for express statutory language to extinguish the right of compensation.”

How the previous NAFTA article 1110 has been treated in arbitration among the parties of NAFTA, Canada, the United States and Mexico, has, or at least should have, bearing on expropriation law in Canada generally.

This is particularly so given NAFTA's, now CUSMA's, constitution-like status as a document that cannot be amended without the consent of all signatories. Expropriation in NAFTA, and now CUSMA, includes not only the open, deliberate and acknowledged takings of property but also the covert or incidental interference with the use of property that has the effect of depriving the owner, in whole or in significant part, of the use or reasonably to be expected economic benefit of the property.

With the ratification of CUSMA, where that leaves expropriation law and Canadian property rights in the future is uncertain. CUSMA is not the only international agreement signed by Canada where foreigners are afforded more private property protections than Canadians.

This is from the “Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Plan 2014: Protecting against extreme water levels, restoring wetlands and preparing for climate change”, which was signed by president-elect Joe Biden in 2016 when he was Obama’s VP and the current government:

The Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Study concluded that an estimated 25,000 privately owned riparian properties are located on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River upstream of the Moses-Saunders Dam. More than 3,000 shoreline property parcels are located below elevation 76.2 m...and could be at risk of flooding on Lake Ontario and the upper St. Lawrence River.

...The restoration of more natural water level regimes in Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River is not a traditional wetland restoration project, which typically includes harvesting and planting, physical transformations of the wetlands, or cleanup of pollutants.

The federal government, in addition to being fully aware that plan 2014 was intended to flood residential properties, has obligations in accordance with the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, article VIII:

...interests on either side of the International Boundary which are injured by reason of the construction, maintenance and operation of the works shall be given suitable and adequate protection and indemnity in accordance with the laws in Canada or the Constitution and laws in the United States respectively....

While flood victims in the United States are being offered compensation for properties confiscated by flooding as a result of government policy, Canadian flood victims have yet to see any recognition of their losses. The time has clearly come to give equal, if not more, protections in the law to Canadians than what is now given to foreigners in Canada.

In a recent United Nations study, countries with stronger property rights were more economically advanced. It is time to modernize expropriation law in Canada to be consistent with international law.

In conclusion, the ownership of private property is not constitutionally protected in Canada. The Crown can take private land for the public good. It is a general principle of expropriation law that the Crown must compensate landowners when it takes their land. In reality, this does not always occur when the expropriation occurs outside a legislative framework.

Bill C-222 would clarify that restoring natural habitat and addressing the consequences of climate variability do not constitute special circumstances. Bill C-222 recognizes expropriation may be desired for these purposes, but that due process must be followed and private landowners should not be forced to give up their land without notice, without a hearing and without fair compensation. Flooded properties due to government policy should be treated like an expropriation. This would trigger the legal process for compensation contained in the Expropriation Act.

I welcome a vigorous discussion regarding Bill C-222.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows the policy of the Government of Canada is to always hold hearings. Hearings have always taken place in the context of expropriations. Willing buyer and willing seller is the policy of the Government of Canada, and expropriation of course is always a last resort. Those to whom she seeks to appeal should be well aware of the fact that expropriation is always the last resort of the Government of Canada.

However, I have a specific question for the member. She stated on her website that the bill seeks to amend the Expropriation Act to amend private property protections for Canadians and that it would set out exceptions that seek to “remove some uncertainty from the existing legislation as to whether owners must be compensated for certain types of de facto takings.”

To be clear, the bill would not accomplish this goal. Why does the member pretend the bill would accomplish a goal that it would not?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, there are two types of expropriation, as the hon. member alluded to, de jure and de facto expropriation. My private member's bill is focused on the first type.

The private member's bill would clarify that restoring natural habitat and addressing the consequences of climate change do not constitute a special circumstance, and thus would be brought through that specific identification into the legislative framework and be a basis upon which the affected landowners could take it to court.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-222 is a rather odd bill. In our opinion, all it does is deny that climate change can lead to disasters that require emergency action.

Accordingly, if Bill C-222 is passed, the government could never invoke the emergency of the expropriation for the purposes of restoring a former natural habitat or the direct or indirect management and variability of the climate.

Expropriation comes from the Latin ex proprium, which means dispossess or deprive of property ownership. Unlike in the United States, the right to property is not enshrined in the Canadian Constitution, as the hon. member noted. However, in Quebec, that right is protected by law.

The Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms stipulates that, “Every person has a right to the peaceful enjoyment and free disposition of his property, except to the extent provided by law.” What is more, the civil code stipulates that, “No owner may be compelled to transfer his ownership except by expropriation according to law for public utility and in return for a just and prior indemnity.”

Does the hon. member understand the difference between the civil code that is applied in Quebec and common law?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to make sure that the hon. member interprets my proposed legislation correctly. The bill, by clarifying that climate variability is not a special circumstance under which the government can declare an expropriation, specifically would put it into legislation and confirm that it exists.

Second, it is interesting that the member mentions expropriation in Quebec, because I understand that, in the city of Montreal, letters are going out to certain property owners asking them to sign away the title to their land. It makes it sound something like business as usual, but if they sign this letter or get tricked into signing these forms, they relinquish their title to this land. Therefore, it is a different type of expropriation wherein, again, the government is not paying compensation to the landowner but rather tricking the property owner into giving title to the municipality.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, we heard the hon. member speak at length about property law and the dispossession of land. I would like to have her comment on the original expropriation by the Crown, which is the Crown's dispossession of land from first nations people and, in particular, the ongoing case that is happening today with the Haldimand tract under the proclamation of 1784 from the Haudenosaunee people.

I wonder if the member might comment on the ongoing dispossession of land by the Crown from indigenous peoples across these lands. She mentioned it in her opening remarks, but she never clearly defined it.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, in my opening remarks, I referred to the fact that there is still a comprehensive land claim going on with the land where Parliament is situated.

In terms of expropriation as it applies to first nations, the Expropriation Act actually excludes matters dealing with first nations' land. There are specific exclusions referring to those types of situations, but I thank the member for his interesting question.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I was interested in hearing what the member had to say about the bill because when I first heard about it, I was a bit miffed. I wondered what the member opposite was trying to accomplish. Honestly, after listening to the member, I am still not convinced about what she is hoping to accomplish.

With the many things she talked about, a question comes to my mind: Where is the example? When has the federal government, in the last 50 years, done the type of thing the member is hoping to stop it from doing? Does she anticipate that future Conservative governments might change the way we have been doing things over the last five decades or so? I am not perfectly clear on this.

These opportunities we get to debate a private member's bill or a motion are very rare, which I know the member opposite is aware of. I looked at the substance of this bill and listened very closely to the member. I must say that it is the first time I have heard her make a presentation in a kind of legal format with details. Still, I did not get the kind of clarification I was hoping to receive.

When I think of the issues of expiration and expropriating properties, there is always a willing buyer or a willing seller. That is what we have seen throughout Liberal administrations. The member talked about wanting to mandate hearings. Hearings take place. There is a great deal of consultation that takes place as well.

The member seemed fixated on the climate change issue. Many of her Conservative colleagues are what we would classify as climate change deniers. They do not recognize the reality of how the world is evolving with regard to climate change. She has incorporated that into the bill.

She talked about climate change and restoring natural habitat. These issues are no doubt relevant, but I do not see any connection between this and what the member is hoping to accomplish with the bill.

Whether it is in national governments, provincial governments, municipal governments or elsewhere, dealing with indigenous-related issues, property issues and these types of things takes place on an ongoing basis. Generally speaking, it is usually for very admirable reasons that this takes place.

To what degree are the concerns expressed by the member somewhat misplaced? I am trying to figure out where there might be that national example that has made the member so upset that she felt it was necessary to bring in legislation about it. I could not think of anything. As the member can see, there is a limitation to the number of questions she is able to provide answers for. She has my email address. Maybe after the debate she can email me and cite an example in the last 50 years where the bill would have been applied. I think that would be very helpful.

As a society we continue to move forward, and one of the things we have witnessed is huge investments in infrastructure. Even Stephen Harper at times recognized the value of infrastructure, and land was designated. We saw large patches of land taken into consideration for building a highway. In this regard, the former administration looked at building Canada Way. No doubt there would have been issues regarding the land, but we always find there is a willing buyer and a willing seller.

Discussion and hearings do take place. I think of the municipalities. My city has plan Winnipeg. People sit around a table and talk about what they envision the city will look like many years from now. The National Capital Commission does a fantastic job in Ottawa as do councillors. We can talk about the billions of dollars that the government has committed to building infrastructure, supporting our economy and communities and recognizing the value of doing so.

No doubt there will be opportunities for different types of discussions. People will witness individuals selling their land and different levels of government will end up purchasing it to accomplish something either in the short term or long term. I do not see what the member seems to be so concerned about.

When we talk about natural habitat, hundreds and thousands of acres in the Prairies have returned to that natural habitat. The member might be surprised to know that nothing has really changed in legislation to accommodate that. It is almost as if the member is trying to get a fear out there but it is just not there. I do not quite understand why she would want to do that.

When it makes sense and when there is that willingness to make it happen, why would someone oppose it? More and more, society as a whole is recognizing that different levels of government have an important role to play when it comes to our environment.

It seems to me that the member, and possibly the Conservative Party, needs to be more sensitive to the issues of our municipalities and provincial jurisdictions. Even those Progressive Conservative provincial jurisdictions have to overcome these issues along with the federal government. We, and I will concede it, have a very ambitious plan when it comes to developing our economy. When we talk about our economy, we also recognize that we need to talk about issues such as our environment, sustainable development, and work with indigenous people, leaders and other stakeholders, including provinces and municipalities.

No doubt there will be opportunities well into the future for us to have that forward-thinking plan for where Canada as a nation will be in 20 to 50 years from now. I do not share the same concerns the member opposite has, based on what we have seen in the past. In fact, if we were to have a generalization from the population as a whole, we would see a wide spectrum of support for issues such as recognizing the reality of climate change and the importance of restoring natural habitat where we can.

I would encourage the member to send some specific examples from the national level to my email account. I can assure her, I will read them very carefully.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois about Bill C-222, which would amend the Expropriation Act.

The concept of expropriation is not new in the history of humankind, nor is it new to Canada. Expropriation has been used since ancient times and has led to the development of organized societies. In Quebec, the right to property is protected by section 6 of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, which states:

6. Every person has a right to the peaceful enjoyment and free disposition of his property, except to the extent provided by law.

Quebec civil law has its roots in French law, which, since 1789, has recognized the right of the state to expropriate in the interests of the public, under certain circumstances.

This principle was later incorporated in the Napoleonic Code. It was then adopted by the Civil Code of Lower Canada and then taken up in article 952 of the Quebec civil code.

Canada's first expropriation law dates back to 1886. It was followed by the Expropriation Act of 1952, which was in force until 1970. This act did not contain any provisions for compensation and did not require the Governor in Council to provide reasons for the expropriation. This is unacceptable. It reeks of past imperialists imposing their views with no regard for anyone. This disregard for the public was rectified in 1985.

Expropriation is not a pleasant thing to go through or, I would imagine, to enforce. Mistakes were made in the past. For example, expropriations made to create Forillon National Park caused a great deal of suffering. Then there were the expropriations made to create the Mirabel airport, which also caused significant trauma.

Government of Quebec expropriations in the 1960s shut down villages in the Lower St. Lawrence and the Gaspé. My grandmother, Cécile Gagnon Vignola, worked for Operations Dignity to support the victims of these expropriations.

This is not about unfounded expropriations. It is specifically about expropriations caused by natural disasters or by the need to protect the environment, especially the most fragile areas. The bill before us today does not deal with compensation procedures, but rather with reasons that can be given for an emergency expropriation. Two sections would be amended in much the same way. Sections 10 and 19 have a subsection added to limit the Governor in Council's emergency expropriation powers. To my knowledge, these powers, although limited, have not been used in recent years.

These added subsections stipulate that the Governor in Council will no longer have the right to order emergency expropriations in the very specific case of restoration of former natural habitats or climate variability. In other words, the Governor in Council may make emergency expropriations except in cases involving the environment and climate change.

Accepting such changes would be as irresponsible as saying that the environment is not important, that climate change is not having an impact, or worse, that it does not exist. Some will argue that it is not up to the government to decide where people should move or resettle. In some cases, however, it is clear that government intervention is necessary. People, who are only human, sometimes cannot see past their personal interests and have no long-term vision, no intergenerational vision.

It is time to relearn how to take care of our environment, the place where we live, and to do so not only for ourselves, but also for the people who will live after us.

I have two examples that illustrate why this bill is unacceptable.

Because of record flooding in 2019, the Sainte-Marthe-sur-le-Lac dike collapsed, resulting in the emergency evacuation of 6,000 of the village's 18,000 residents. A total of 800 homes had to be evacuated. It is important to point out that the municipality is largely built in a flood zone and protected by the dike because, as humans, we think that we can stop the force of nature. It was necessary to act quickly to raise the height of the dike, limiting the view of the lake from some homes and thus decreasing their property value.

Had Bill C-222 existed in Quebec in 2019, the height of the dike could not have been raised. As a result, the municipality would have flooded year after year for the simple reason that some residents would prefer to have a view of the lake rather than be protected. That also means that, year after year, the homes of these residents would have flooded and the government would have had to take action to move them out of the flood zone, house them, compensate them and so forth. All these costs are paid out of taxpayers' money, so this is not just a problem for the owners. It is the entire population that has to pay more taxes to cover such costs.

Then there are insurance premiums that go up every time there is a natural disaster and not just for the people affected, but for the entire population too. Protection of private property, which is an important right, also has repercussions for the entire population. It is therefore important to allow the government the right to legislate or make emergency decisions in the interest of the entire population and not just in the interest of certain individuals.

What is more, in the 1960s, if we had tried to see beyond the end of our noses, no one would be living in a flood plain. This would have been banned from the start. Disasters like the one in Sainte-Marthe-sur-le-Lac or the big storm that went through the Lower St. Lawrence in December 2015, if I am not mistaken, where homes and garages were carried away by the river because they were built too close to the water, would not have happened. Building homes in those locations would have been prohibited.

Caring for our environment means caring for our food sources and for our economy in the long term. Looking beyond our immediate needs means thinking about future generations. The bill includes an indirect element that would allow the Governor in Council to decide that a person cannot build a house in a given location. That is indirect expropriation. It is important that we keep this possibility.

I am thinking of marshes in particular. When a builder sees a marsh, he fills it in, builds condos and thinks that everything is great. However, without an understanding of the geology and geomorphology of the area and the structure of marshes, we may not realize that marshy areas still sink even after being filled. Consequently, foundations crack, then owners turn to the city or the builder for compensation. Add to that the legal bills. Once again, the entire population pays.

Therefore, it is not just an environmental issue. It is also an issue of fairness for the entire population. We should not have to pay for the decisions made by one or two individuals who make personal choices.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-222. In the summary of the document for the bill, it states:

This enactment amends the Expropriation Act to provide that the power of the Governor in Council to waive the requirement for a public hearing in respect of an objection to the intended expropriation of an interest in land or immovable real right may not be exercised in certain circumstances.

Further on in the bill, the Expropriation Act cites two examples of where that right to waive the requirement for the public hearing may not be exercised. It is in “restoring historical natural habitats or addressing, directly or indirectly, climate variability.” That, in essence, is the bill before us this evening.

I have enormous respect for the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. I disagree with her vehemently on many issues, but I certainly respect her hard work in the House of Commons. She is one of the deans of the Conservative caucus. That being said, I will not be supporting this bill.

I am going to cite the two reasons given in the Expropriation Act for why there should be an inability for the Governor in Council to waive the public hearing requirement. The first, as I mentioned earlier, is the restoring of historical natural habitats.

The origin of this is of course the devastating floods that took place in 2017 and 2019 in Renfrew County. I think all of our sympathies and thoughts are with the many people in that region who suffered losses during that time. Hundreds of homes were damaged and many were destroyed. The 2017 and 2019 floods were absolutely devastating for the region.

That is why this legislation purports to waive the Governor in Council's ability to override public consultations. When we look at the reasons behind the flooding, often cited as a result of IJC actions, we can actually see that there is a difference between what is promoted by the bill and what actually happened on the ground.

Doug McNeil wrote an independent review of the 2019 flood events in Ontario. This was commissioned by a Conservative government. A Conservative member of course would agree with the recommendations and the conclusions in that regard.

Doug McNeil said, “some believe that the International Joint Commission’s (IJC) operation...has a negative impact on...Ottawa River flooding.” He goes on to cite in the report that was filed with the Conservative government that the IJC actions had absolutely no bearing on flows of the Ottawa River. There are indeed, though, things that had an impact on those devastating floods. They are cited in the report as climate change and impacts of a changing climate. Those are cited repeatedly in McNeil's reports.

The first item that is cited in the Expropriation Act simply does not hold water, if members can excuse a pun in that sense. The reality is that the IJG, very clearly from the report of the Conservative government, did not have an impact of the devastating floods that impacted so many people in Renfrew County and in other areas.

There is a second item that is cited in the bill and that is climate variability. Climate variability, as members are well aware, is not the same as the climate change crisis and the climate emergency that the House has already ruled on and that we are currently in. I will come back to that in just a second.

The member, who I respect but who disagree with vehemently, has stated in reports that she has actually filed with her local riding that there are alarmist claims about man-made global warming. These are scientific facts about the impacts of climate change and the impacts of the climate emergency. The good people of Renfrew County are not immune from the climate emergency we are seeing around the planet.

As I cited earlier, we saw two devastating floods that impacted hundreds of homes and hundreds of homeowners in the area around Renfrew County in 2017 and 2019.

In British Columbia, in two of the last four summer seasons, we have literally not seen the sky. The impact of forest fires due to climate change completely shrouded the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. When I was a child, I can remember incredibly blue skies throughout the summer in the Lower Mainland of B.C. This has been impacted by climate change. The reality is that climate change has not just had an impact on the quality of life for the people of Renfrew County or the people of British Columbia. We have seen the devastating impacts of climate change around the world. These are undeniable. We cannot talk about climate variability. We cannot make, as the member has said, alarmist claims about man-made global warming. The climate emergency is upon us. People around the world are living with it, and people around the world are saying that governments need to step up now to stop the climate emergency. They need to step up and make the transition to clean energy.

The impacts of two of the last four flood seasons in Renfrew County are very similar to impacts of two of the last four summers on the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. Many other regions of Canada can cite similar impacts. This summer we saw the western United States ablaze. The impact of that smoke was even felt in southern British Columbia. The many forest fires that were ravaging the western United States, because of the impacts of climate change, blew that smoke right into the Salish Sea, the Lower Mainland and southern Vancouver Island as well.

We know that those impacts are being felt. We know that the economic impacts are also being increasingly felt. The cost to the Canadian economy this year will be $5 billion. We know that amount is going to increase each and every year. Within a couple of decades, projections say that the cost to the Canadian economy from climate change will be $50 billion a year.

We have to take action. I would suggest it is not by adopting Bill C-222, which talks about climate variability, but it is actually by taking action to help people in Renfrew County and to help people across Canada and around the world. That means we have to stop the incredible support of $12 billion that is given to the oil and gas sector. Canada now is in a very sad race with Saudi Arabia, in terms of the egregious amount of support that is given to oil and gas CEOs, yet we have not seen any investments made for energy workers. I am part of the energy sector. I came out of the Shellburn Oil Refinery in Burnaby, British Columbia, so I have worked in the oil and gas sector. There have been no provisions made, either by the Conservative governments in Alberta and Saskatchewan or by the federal government, to actually transition energy workers from the fossil fuels that are helping to provoke climate change to clean energy that would help to address the climate emergency and bring down the egregious levels of greenhouse gas emissions we are seeing literally burning our planet.

Those are the actions, and that is the kind of bill, that I would certainly be willing to support. These would tackle the efforts that many people are undertaking around the world to address the climate emergency. That is what I would be prepared to support. That would be something that would address the concerns of the very good people of Renfrew County. I know the area well and I know they understand that there is a climate emergency and that our governments, both provincial and federal, have to take action. I will be voting against Bill C-222. I believe that we need to take action in the climate emergency, and I hope that we will see further private members' legislation that will actually address something that the government at the moment seems unwilling to address.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, if the last speaker were to come to Alberta and Saskatchewan, there would be an opportunity for him to look at the great work being done there to combat greenhouse gases and all the other things that are happening within the industry. That would be helpful. Perhaps then the rhetoric would be a bit more logical.

My family fled oppression in the disputed area of Schleswig-Holstein, Germany, in 1870 to come to America, a land healing after having just gone through a devastating civil war. Because of issues arising from one of the Oklahoma riots, two of the sons ventured north to Canada's Northwest Territories to farm in what was eventually to become Alberta. As members can imagine, the issue of property rights and freedom runs deep in my family.

Other pioneers in our central Alberta community arrived from the far reaches of the world. Many of these new neighbours were from war-torn communist countries and cherished the fact that once and for all they could breathe freely, knowing their hard work and commitment to their family and community would be respected and that their ownership of property would be honoured.

Each of us, all 338 members of Parliament, need to remember the dedication and sacrifice that those who came before us showed and endured. Sadly, there are still some situations where governments have extraordinary powers that are easily abused. This is why I am so honoured to speak to Bill C-222, an act to amend the Expropriation Act regarding the protection of private property. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke for bringing this important legislation forward. I know she is also a passionate advocate for the defence of property rights in Canada.

We play several roles as elected members. I cannot think of many functions that are more important than working to safeguard the property rights of our constituents. Property rights form one of the most important cornerstones of our society and our economy. There are some among us who like to equate the notion of rights with individual liberties or freedoms to do whatever we want. Property rights are not only paramount as part of our tradition, but are essentially the foundation for all other rights as well.

We often like to equate the notion of free speech with the ability to say whatever we want, which is true to an extent, but as we know there are limits to this axiom. The possibility of severe harm because of hateful views is but one example. This right to free speech does not apply when we are trespassing on someone else's property. There must remain a fundamental degree of respect for the owner of that property. We have seen situations like that in the past. In the same vein, the right to freely associate is not the right to associate anywhere we want to. We do not have the right to freely associate on private property. We can do so in a public space or a space we own. The bottom line is that there are generally no such individual rights or liberties beyond the property rights that a person may have.

This is why I say that property rights are so vital. It is certainly one reason why standing up for the property rights of our constituents is such an important part of our job.

In my riding of Red Deer—Mountain View, we know about the value of property and the importance of property rights. Many of my constituents are farmers or ranchers. They put food on the table for their own families, as well as for millions of families across Canada and around the globe. In many cases, they grew up on a farm, as did I. They know the value of a hard day’s work. They understand the importance of taking care of what they own, of living frugally and responsibly, or of saving hard-earned money to make a down payment on a house, a new farm building or to expand a herd or the size of their farming operation.

The same is true for our local business people. They work hard for years so that they can save enough money to expand their business, look for new clients, hire more workers to keep their business growing and hopefully have something left for their family in retirement.

As elected members, we must stand up for and proudly say that we will help protect the property and the property rights of our constituents. This is why the bill that we are addressing here today has such significance.

We have always heard that property rights are not protected under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is different from other countries, such as the U.S. where property rights are constitutionally protected. Under the Fifth Amendment of the American Constitution, no private property may be taken for public use without just compensation and without the due process of law.

In contrast, what we are seeing here in Canada is a disturbing trend towards what is referred to “regulatory”, “de facto” or “constructive” taking of private property. This happens when governments use their statutory powers to regulate or restrict the property rights of an owner without acquiring title to the land as being adversely affected. The landowner feels the impact of the regulations as if the land had been expropriated. Put another way, the government can strictly regulate land, limiting its value and what a landowner can do with it, without triggering procedures in the legislation.

A “de facto” or “regulatory” taking means that a property owner is normally not entitled to compensation. What is worse is that we see many examples in jurisdictions across Canada where the government has actually misled the owner and the public about the intended use of a property in order to circumvent the need to pay a landowner compensation, choosing to follow the regulatory taking route rather than following the rules under federal or provincial expropriation laws.

If a government changes the designation of a property to avoid compensation under expropriation statutes and then subsequently redefines the designation for future use, this avoiding of higher compensation is an abuse of power. Bill C-222 seeks to remedy this type of situation and remove uncertainty from the existing legislation as to whether owners must be compensated for certain types of takings.

The goal is to protect private property by ensuring that governments follow the rules of due process. Bill C-222 seeks to remove uncertainty from the existing legislation as to whether owners must be compensated for certain types of so-called regulatory takings.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, one of the most important functions that we perform as elected members of this place is to protect the property rights of our constituents. I know that I want to leave a legacy for future Canadians where property rights are protected. We have come too far as a free and caring nation. We have been the beacon of hope for immigrants from all over the globe. We must continue to ensure that property rights are treated honourably.

Bill C-222 would take us one step further in working to protect the property rights of our constituents by ensuring that the government follows the rules of due process when it comes to expropriating land. I therefore encourage all hon. members to support its speedy passage.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The time provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House resumed from November 17, 2020, consideration of the motion that Bill C-222, An Act to amend the Expropriation Act (protection of private property), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, I salute you and thank all the staff, especially the interpreters, for continuing to serve us so well.

I am pleased to take part in today's debate on BillC-222, an act to amend the Expropriation Act. The member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke tabled this bill, apparently with the goal of promoting the protection of Canadians' private property. The member stated that her intention with this bill was to “remove some uncertainty from the existing legislation as to whether owners can be compensated” and “protect the private property rights of average Canadians” in the event of federal expropriation.

However, the amendments proposed in Bill C-222 do nothing to protect private property. They only result in the uneven application of key legislation and restrict the government's ability to act in the interests of Canadians in certain emergency situations. Consequently, this is a deeply flawed bill for several important reasons that I will explain in the next few minutes.

At the heart of this debate is the issue of expropriation, a rare occurrence indeed, driven by urgent need that takes place only if and when a negotiated process is not feasible.

Although rarely used, expropriation can play a critical role in dealing with emergencies or incidents in areas such as defence, transportation and the environment.

In its current form, the Expropriation Act is an important piece of legislation that details the process the Government of Canada is required to follow when private property must be expropriated to serve the public interest. Under this process, a public hearing must be held if there is an objection to a notice of expropriation.

As it stands, the act contains provisions so that in an emergency, when a delay would be prejudicial to the public interest, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement may step in and set aside certain requirements. As an example, the minister is permitted, in the case of an emergency, to waive the holding of a public hearing to allow the government to move more quickly to expropriate a crucial piece of land or property.

This exemption applies exclusively to pressing cases in which emergency measures are necessary. It could have to do with the urgent need to acquire material or a good, including to ensure the protection of essential transportation infrastructure, or with national security.

The government is cautious and uses due diligence in every aspect of the expropriation process. Nonetheless, the need to act quickly, especially in emergencies, can be a determining factor in the process. If the proposed changes were made to this legislation, it would not be possible to speed up the expropriation process in a pressing manner in case of an emergency.

Having flexibility in the expropriation process is potentially critical to dealing with emergencies when timelines are paramount. We simply cannot accept amendments that hinder the government's ability to act quickly in the interests of Canadians when faced with defence, transportation or environmental emergencies.

Bill C-222 proposes to amend the Expropriation Act to limit the power to exercise the right under subsection 10(11) to forego a public hearing before registering the notice of intention to expropriate lands. It also seeks to limit the power provided for under subsection 19(2) to substitute a period lesser than the waiting period for taking material possession of land or the immovable real right.

However, the hon. member's bill seeks to impose these limits only in specific cases. More specifically, the bill states that subsections 10(11) and 19(2) would not apply in cases where the purpose of expropriation is for “restoring historical natural habitats or addressing, directly or indirectly, climate variability”. Ultimately, these changes create a two-tier system by retaining certain factors, but setting others aside.

When deemed necessary, our government believes all expropriations are deserving of equal treatment regardless of their purpose, whether it is environmental protection or accommodation for public infrastructure. It is counterproductive to establish a tiered system by creating exceptions limiting the minister's ability to act swiftly in cases of real environmental emergencies over others. It just does not make sense.

The government is firmly committed to defending the private property rights of Canadians. We recognize the importance of protecting private property rights by ensuring that the regular procedure is followed pursuant to the existing Expropriation Act, which sets out the rigorous hearing process that must precede any planned expropriation.

Currently, the act allows the minister to waive holding a public hearing if, by reason of special circumstances, the physical possession or use by the Crown is

urgently required and that to order that a public hearing be conducted with respect to it would occasion a delay prejudicial to the public interest

I will now indicate how often a hearing has been waived.

In reality, there has never been an accelerated process where the minister had to use the provisions under the subsections in question of the current act. However, these are important provisions to have if they were required. The member did not provide any compelling argument that would justify curtailing the minister's powers in this manner, and only in certain situations.

It would seem that the only thing the bill and its amendments would truly achieve is to apply new impediments to the Government of Canada's ability to respond to emergency situations and, again, only in certain circumstances. Putting aside those emergency provisions, the Expropriation Act already ensures that property owners are treated fairly and compensated appropriately in situations where expropriation is considered necessary.

The act also clearly indicates how the market value must be determined and paid. I want to point out that Public Services and Procurement Canada has completed just 12 expropriations in the past 30 years. In these cases, the government abided by the act and ensured that property owners were treated fairly and were offered appropriate compensation. There has never been a situation, under the current Expropriation Act, in which the government has waived public hearings related to a proposed expropriation of property for any reason whatsoever.

Bill C-222 is essentially an ineffective solution to a non-existent problem. Simply put, this bill is unnecessary, and Canadians have nothing to gain from it. Expropriation is rare. I repeat that Public Services and Procurement Canada has completed approximately 12 expropriations in the past 30 years, and there has never been a situation, under the current Expropriation Act, in which the government has waived public hearings related to a proposed expropriation of property.

Frankly, our position is that expropriations deemed necessary deserve equal treatment, regardless of their purpose, whether it is environmental protection or accommodation for public infrastructure.

Nevertheless, the bill, as introduced, would simply undermine the government's ability to act in emergencies and provides no added benefit for property owners.

For all of the reasons stated above, our government does not support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to reject it.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke for introducing this bill. I know that it is an extremely rewarding experience since I recently introduced a private member's bill myself. I thank her and commend her for her work.

I want to begin by indicating where the Bloc Québécois stands on this bill on expropriation. I must say that it is a very unusual bill. Unfortunately, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against Bill C-222, and I will explain why.

Contrary to what is being proposed, Bill C-222 is not a way to protect owners from arbitrary and abusive expropriation. In reality, all it seems to do is deny the fact that climate change can lead to disasters that require emergency action. In some cases, that unfortunately may require expropriation. I say unfortunately because expropriation is always a loss for those whose property is being expropriated, even if such action is justified.

Section 11 of the current Expropriation Act states that the government has the authority to carry out rapid expropriation when urgently required under certain special circumstances. If Bill C-222 passes, the government will never be able to categorize an expropriation as urgent if its purpose is to restore historical natural habitats or address, directly or indirectly, climate variability. As we all know, climate change affects natural phenomena. Climate change has caused, is causing and will cause disasters.

The spring floods we used to get every 100 years are happening more and more often. These floods have become more sudden and severe and require more and more urgent intervention. Last December in Gaspé, the Matane river flow was recorded at over 300 cubic metres per second, which is almost 10 times its average annual flow.

Laval University researchers studied the effects of climate change on floods caused by ice jams. They found that damage could increase by 30% on average because of climate change.

My riding in the Lower St. Lawrence has two rivers. Over the next 50 years, flood damage could increase by 50% along the Matane river and by 75% along the Matapédia river. That is not only cause for concern, it is a fact we need to consider when discussion the topic of expropriation.

Many people will never forget the spring of 2019 in Sainte-Marthe-sur-le-Lac, a municipality in the Lower Laurentians built largely in a flood zone and protected by a dike. The dike, which was poorly adapted to the high volume of flood waters in the context of climate change, collapsed and the municipality was flooded by the icy waters of the Lake of Two Mountains. A third of the municipality, in other words 6,000 people, were under emergency evacuation orders. Some 800 houses were flooded. We heard the testimonies of desperate residents who, in some cases, lost everything. The Quebec government had to act quickly, in just a few months, to raise and reinforce the dike to prevent this tragedy from happening again the following year. This operation involved encroaching on certain private properties and probably decreased the value of several waterfront homes by obstructing their view of the lake. The matter is currently before the courts to determine the amount of compensation to which the shoreline residents are entitled.

I mention all of this to highlight the fact that, if the provisions of Bill C-222 had been incorporated into Quebec law at the time, local residents could have prevented the Quebec government from taking action to avoid losing parcels of land or losing their views. By doing so, they would have put the entire municipality at risk of another flood.

Expropriation for the common good is nothing new. It can be found in the Old Testament, ancient Greece, Roman law. It was born out of the necessity to create major public works for the good of all. Even in societies that recognize and protect private property, it is legitimate for the public interest to give way when required by public utility or general interest.

However, the current Expropriation Act allows for objections to expropriation. The property owner can object to the expropriation within 30 days of receiving the expropriation notice. The government appoints a hearing officer, who will hold a public hearing at which the owner will present the reasons why they believe that the expropriation is not justified or illegal. The owner in question can then argue that the reason why the government wishes to expropriate has nothing to do with the public interest or that the expropriation notice does not comply with the law. The hearing officer submits a report to the government, which can amend the notice, abandon the expropriation or simply ignore the officer's opinion. We can see that the process for objecting to the expropriation is more symbolic than real, because the government can unilaterally reject the owner's arguments. We can also see that this objection process ends up delaying the expropriation.

Subsection 10(11) of the current Expropriation Act allows the government to skip the appointment of a hearing officer and a public hearing if it is of the opinion that the expropriation is, by reason of special circumstances, urgently required and that to order a public hearing would occasion delay prejudicial to the public interest.

However, the bill before us this evening, Bill C-222, adds a paragraph stating that subsection 10(11) “does not apply if the interest or right...is intended to be expropriated by the Crown for the purpose of restoring historical natural habitats”, as I was saying earlier, “or addressing, directly or indirectly, climate variability”.

This addition would prevent the government from categorizing an expropriation as urgent if it is related to environmental protection or climate change. In a way, this bill is saying that climate change cannot cause disasters requiring an urgent response, such as expropriation or even partial expropriation.

If Bill C-222 is adopted, the people affected will have the luxury of objecting to an emergency measure related to climate change that affects the value of their property, which will limit the government's ability to deal with it. The Bloc Québécois cannot abide by the government being limited to that extent in dealing with climate disasters. That is why we will not support Bill C-222.

Let us not forget that the Expropriation Act is essentially procedural legislation. It determines the procedures the government must take when it proceeds with an expropriation, the deadlines it must respect and the recourse the expropriated has in the case of an objection. Under the Expropriation Act, a person who is the subject of the expropriation has two rights. They can challenge the amount of compensation or they can challenge the expropriation itself.

Last February, when she introduced her bill, the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke issued a press release to explain the scope of the bill. On reading the bill, we saw a few discrepancies with her explanations, which is rather unusual.

First, Bill C-222 was explained in such a way as to suggest that expanding environmental regulations were tantamount to disguised expropriations. To the hon. member, the protection of private property is compromised by this trend, which would justify the bill. With all due respect, I tend to disagree.

Public authorities do pass regulations that prevent a landowner from enjoying or disposing of private property as they wish. For example, when a municipality that passes a by-law preventing the construction of buildings on a flood plain for environmental reasons, it is considered an indirect or disguised expropriation. The owner can then turn to the courts to be compensated for the loss of the asset.

However, the proceedings do not stem from the Expropriation Act but from Quebec's Civil Code or, if the owner lives in English Canada, from common law. It is not covered by the Expropriation Act or by Bill C-222. That is why we wonder about the real reason behind the tabling of this bill.

The member also said that her bill would give Canadian property owners the same rights that foreign investors are afforded under NAFTA. I am referring to the investor's right to oppose environmental regulations that diminish the value of their investments. My colleague may have missed the fact that the Expropriation Act deals only with the expropriation of property by the state. It has nothing to do with environmental regulations.

I also remind members that the chapter of NAFTA that allowed an American investor to sue the government when an act or regulation diminished the value of their investment does not exist in the new agreement, CUSMA.

Lastly, the member said that, because the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not protect property rights, these rights are covered by the Expropriation Act. However, private property is protected by the Civil Code, not federal legislation. Section 92.13 of the Constitution states that property rights are a provincial jurisdiction. The Expropriation Act does not protect private property. Rather, it stipulates how the government must proceed for any expropriations of property.

Bill C-222, which would amend the existing Expropriation Act, will not protect private property and will only prevent the government from dealing with climate-related emergencies. Climate change is exacerbating the natural phenomena that pose a danger to the health and safety of Canadians and Quebeckers, so the Bloc Québécois cannot agree with restricting the government's ability to deal with environmental disasters.