Bill C-222 (Historical)

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

This bill is from the 43rd Parliament, 2nd session, which ended in August 2021.

Sponsor

Cheryl Gallant Conservative

Introduced as a private member’s bill. (These don’t often become law.)

Status

Defeated, as of Feb. 17, 2021
(This bill did not become law.)

Summary

This is from the published bill.

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.

Similar bills

C-222 (43rd Parliament, 1st session) An Act to amend the Expropriation Act (protection of private property)

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-222s:

C-222 (2021) An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (travel expenses deduction for tradespersons)

C-222 (2016) An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (Canada-Barbados Income Tax Agreement)

C-222 (2013) Military and Veteran Families Week Act

Votes

Feb. 17, 2021 Failed 2nd reading of Bill C-222, An Act to amend the Expropriation Act (protection of private property)

Debate Summary

This is a computer-generated summary of the speeches below. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Bill C-222 would amend the Expropriation Act to limit the government's power to waive public hearings for land expropriations related to restoring natural habitats or addressing climate variability.

Conservative

Address regulatory taking: The party is concerned about regulatory or de facto taking of private property, where government actions restrict rights without formal expropriation or compensation.
Strengthen property rights: Bill C-222 aims to modernize the Expropriation Act to protect landowners by requiring notice, hearings, and fair compensation for government takings.
Require compensation for environmental takings: The bill clarifies that environmental goals like habitat restoration or climate variability do not justify taking private land without following due process and providing fair compensation.
Ensure fair treatment for Canadians: The party argues Canadians should have property protections equal to or greater than those afforded to foreign investors under trade agreements like CUSMA.

NDP

Opposes bill, seeks real action: The NDP opposes Bill C-222, arguing that real action is needed to address the climate emergency, such as ending oil and gas subsidies and transitioning energy workers.
Bill's flood premise flawed: The bill's premise regarding the cause of floods is flawed; an independent report found climate change, not IJC actions, was responsible.
Uses inadequate climate term: The bill addresses "climate variability," which is an insufficient term for the current "climate change crisis" or "climate emergency."

Bloc

Opposes bill C-222: The Bloc Québécois opposes Bill C-222, which would remove the Governor in Council's power for emergency expropriation in cases of environmental restoration or climate variability.
Need for government intervention: Government intervention is necessary for long-term and intergenerational vision, as individuals may prioritize personal interests over environmental protection and climate change impacts.
Concerns about public safety: Limiting emergency expropriation for environmental reasons endangers public safety and communities, as demonstrated by the Sainte-Marthe-sur-le-Lac flooding event and the need for emergency action.
Fairness for taxpayers: The bill's restrictions could increase costs for taxpayers to compensate and house people whose homes are repeatedly affected by natural disasters due to building in dangerous zones.

Liberal

Questions bill's purpose: The party is miffed and unclear on the bill's purpose, stating current processes involve willing transactions and consultation.
Lacks historical justification: They question the need for the bill, asking for examples of the federal government acting in the way the bill seeks to prevent over the past 50 years.
Concerns are misplaced: The party suggests the concerns expressed are misplaced and the bill addresses a non-existent fear regarding federal land use and development practices.

Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Expropriation ActPrivate Members' Business

February 17th, 2021 / 5:35 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

I declare the motion lost.

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 90 minutes.

Expropriation ActPrivate Members' Business

February 17th, 2021 / 5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order, as a result of the vote we just had in the House on the second reading of Bill C-218, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to sports betting. The government is firmly in favour of single sports betting. This is why on November 26 of last year we introduced Bill C-13, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to single event sport betting. We also supported unanimous consent motions to pass Bill C-13 at all stages in December. We were disappointed it did not pass.

We took action to decriminalize single event sport betting in Canada so these activities take place in a safe and regulated environment, while supporting good well-paying jobs for Canadians. We also proposed—

Expropriation ActPrivate Members' Business

February 17th, 2021 / 5:35 p.m.

An hon. member

Debate. Debate.

Expropriation ActPrivate Members' Business

February 17th, 2021 / 5:35 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

The hon. member has the right to get to his point.

Expropriation ActPrivate Members' Business

February 17th, 2021 / 5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, the point of order has been discussed with the opposition House leader, who I see nodding his head, so if I could continue, I will be no more than 30 to 45 seconds.

We also proposed to engage the provinces, territories, indigenous communities and organizations that have expressed an interest in discussing how gambling is regulated. We believe Bill C-13 is substantively different from Bill C-218, as it includes a horse racing provision and achieves its objectives through different means.

Having said that, the government acknowledges that Bill C-218 came to a vote first and that the horse racing amendments can be moved at committee. Given our strong support for single sport betting, we have therefore decided that, in the interest of moving forward with the legislation in the most efficient manner possible, the government will now focus its energy on supporting Bill C-218 and seek to make the important amendments regarding the horse racing provision at committee.

Therefore, if you seek it, I hope you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move that notwithstanding any Standing Order, special order or usual practice of the House, the order for second reading in reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights of Bill C-13, an act to amend the Criminal Code (single event sport betting), standing in the name of the Minister of Justice, be discharged and that the bill be withdrawn from the Order Paper.

Expropriation ActPrivate Members' Business

February 17th, 2021 / 5:40 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.

Expropriation ActPrivate Members' Business

February 17th, 2021 / 5:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.