Part 5 – Division 1
Questions & Answers
Building High-Speed Rail Faster
Adjustments to the Expropriation Process for the Initiative
Q: How do these adjustments to expropriation benefit Canadians?
A: The proposed changes should contribute to reduce land acquisition-related costs and risks of delays by reducing the administrative burden associated with expropriations.
Q: Will those expropriated still receive fair compensation?
A: Yes, the existing compensation regime for expropriations is not affected by the proposed adjustment. Individuals and organizations subject to expropriation will continue to receive fair compensation based on established principles, including market value and other eligible costs, ensuring that affected parties are treated equitably and consistently throughout the process.
These individuals and organizations will a continue to have the opportunity to negotiate compensation and to challenge the amount before the Federal Court if they are not satisfied.
Q: Why are adjustments to the Expropriation Act necessary for this initiative?
A: Given the scale and complexity of delivering Canada’s first high-speed rail network—nearly 1,000 kilometres in length and requiring the acquisition of 8,000 to 10,000 parcels—the adjustments are designed to adapt the expropriation process to the realities of a large linear infrastructure project. The geometric requirements of high-speed rail impose strict limits on allowable curvature, leaving only a narrow range of technically viable alignments and highlighting the need for a fit-for-purpose and efficient land-acquisition regime.
Q: What precedent exists for adjusting the expropriation process for large infrastructure projects?
A: Multiple provinces, including Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta, have introduced alternative expropriation processes for major infrastructure projects in their jurisdictions. While there are differences in the federal and provincial regimes, these changes are designed to address similar challenges and expedite land acquisition.
Q: Why is Alto being exempted from proving unsuccessful attempts to purchase land?
A: This does not mean that no attempts will be made. Rather, this will provide additional flexibility to Alto in determining whether to proceed with expropriation. We believe Alto to be in an appropriate position to determine when to request an expropriation, taken into account various project-related factors.
Q: Why is consent from the Governor in Council being removed for expropriation decisions?
A: Requiring Governor in Council consent would significantly slow the process. In our view, since Cabinet will approve the business case and, as part of this, the initiative’s alignment, this step is not needed and would duplicate decision-making.
Q: Why are public hearings under section 10 of the Expropriation Act being waived for this initiative?
A: The scale of this initiative, which covers over 100 communities across multiple jurisdictions, makes holding public hearings for each expropriation impractical. Throughout the initiative’s development, there has been and will continue to be numerous community engagement activities where people will have the occasion to better understand the Initiative, including the proposed alignment, and its potential impacts.
Q: Why allow publication of an abbreviated Notice of Intention to Expropriate?
A: Publishing detailed technical descriptions for thousands of parcels in both the Canada Gazette and local publications is burdensome and costly. An abbreviated notice will provide the essential information and maintain transparency.
Q: Why is email being allowed for notification of affected parties?
A: Email notifications are more efficient and timely communication for affected landowners.
Q: Why is the timeline for issuing a Notice of Confirmation of the Intention to Expropriate being extended?
A: As expropriation processes will be done for large bundles of parcels of lands and given the size and scope of the initiative, adequate time is needed to complete the process.
Q: What are the risks if these legislative adjustments are not implemented?
A: These measures aim at facilitating land acquisitions. Not implementing them could delay project timelines and increase costs, affecting benefits to Canadians and undermining public confidence in the initiative.
Q: Does this approach undermine public transparency or accountability?
A: No. The adjusted processes maintain transparency through notices, consideration of written objections, and public documentation. Adjustments are made solely to address initiative-specific challenges.