Joseph Quesnel: High-speed rail should not come at the expense of property rights

Article content

A government that can take your land before buying it is not merely building a railway. It’s testing the limits of property rights.

Article content

In 2025, the federal government announced plans for a new high-speed rail line, called Alto, to connect Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec City. Funded primarily by taxpayers, cost estimates range between $60 billion and $90 billion.

Article content

Article content

Article content

To clear the path, in 2022, the government created a Crown corporation to oversee the Alto project and later designated it a “transformative project” to expedite regulatory and environmental reviews. Those developments create political momentum. They do not establish necessity.

Article content

Article content

Under the framework, which was enshrined in law with the passage of the High-Speed Rail Act earlier this year, Alto could potentially expropriate private property along the proposed route without first trying to purchase it from owners. That should concern anyone who believes ownership means more than holding land until the government finds another use for it.

Article content

Expropriation is sometimes necessary. A government cannot allow every landowner to veto a hospital, bridge, utility line or highway. But there are reasonable limits. And a government’s declaration that a project serves the “public interest” is not proof that it does.

Article content

High-speed rail is not an emergency service. It is a transportation choice for commuters and travellers, and on the government’s part, it is a policy choice of where to invest in infrastructure. That does not make Alto illegitimate, but it does mean the burden of justification should be higher before the state compels someone to surrender a home, farm or business.

Article content

Article content

The relevant question is whether the benefits are sufficiently clear, broad and substantial to justify taking Canadians’ land. That requires evidence, not just assertions.

Article content

Article content

The government should publish its estimates of ridership, economic growth, environmental gains and operating costs. It should explain who benefits — frequent travellers, urban centres, developers near the stations, the public — and who bears the costs — taxpayers, rural communities that won’t use the service and property owners whose land falls within the corridor.

Article content

The benefits of Alto may be widely advertised, but the burdens will be personal. One family could lose land. Another could see a rail corridor divide fields, undermine drainage or obstruct farm equipment. A business could lose a location. A homeowner may retain part of a property but lose privacy, access, value and peace of mind.

Article content

Market-value compensation matters. Full compensation for relocation, business losses and damage to remaining land matters even more. But a cheque does not make an involuntary transaction voluntary. A farm is not merely a number of acres. A home is more than its square metres. For their owners, they may bear intangibles that money cannot buy.