Mandatory Hearings for Climate Expropriations

Summary#

This bill changes the federal Expropriation Act to limit when the federal Cabinet can skip a public hearing after someone objects to a planned taking of land. It applies only when the federal government seeks land to restore historical natural habitats or to address climate variability, directly or indirectly. It does not change compensation rules or stop expropriations; it adds a guaranteed public hearing step in these cases.

• Requires a public hearing on objections to federal expropriations for habitat restoration or climate-related purposes; Cabinet cannot waive it (Bill s. 10(11.1)).
• Applies even if the notice does not state that purpose or lists it as a secondary purpose (Bill s. 10(11.1), s. 19(3)).
• Extends the same no-waiver rule to the confirmation stage of the expropriation (Bill s. 19(3)).
• Only affects federal expropriations; provincial and municipal expropriations are not covered by the federal Act.
• Does not change who can be expropriated, how compensation is set, or final decision powers.

What it means for you#

• Households and property owners

  • If the federal government moves to take your land or a land interest (like a lease or easement) for habitat restoration or to address climate variability, you can object and you are guaranteed a public hearing; Cabinet cannot cancel that hearing (Bill s. 10(11.1)).
  • The hearing officer reports to the Minister, but the government can still proceed with the taking after considering the report; this bill does not grant a veto. Data unavailable on typical timelines.
  • The rule applies even if the government notice does not say the purpose is environmental, or says it is only a side purpose (Bill s. 10(11.1)).

• Businesses and farms

  • Same rights as other owners: if your land is targeted for these environmental or climate purposes, you get a public hearing on your objection. The taking can still go ahead after the hearing (Bill s. 10(11.1), s. 19(3)).

• Community groups and residents

  • Public hearings create a set time and place to present evidence and concerns about the proposed taking when it is for habitat restoration or climate variability purposes. Data unavailable on how participation is organized under current regulations.

• Federal agencies and Crown corporations

  • For projects to restore historical natural habitats (e.g., wetland recovery) or to address climate variability (e.g., floodplain realignment), you must plan and hold the objection hearing; you cannot rely on Cabinet to waive it (Bill s. 10(11.1), s. 19(3)).
  • You must also follow the same no-waiver rule before confirming the expropriation (Bill s. 19(3)).
  • Other expropriations (e.g., for defense or transportation) continue under existing waiver rules.

• Provinces, municipalities, and Indigenous governments

  • Direct effect is limited, because the federal Expropriation Act governs federal takings. Expropriations under provincial or territorial laws are not affected. Data unavailable on interactions with specific federal-Indigenous land processes.

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No publicly available fiscal note.
• No new spending authority or direct appropriations are created by the bill; it changes process only (Bill s. 10(11.1), s. 19(3)).
• Likely incremental administrative costs to conduct hearings in covered cases; amounts and frequency: Data unavailable.
• Potential schedule impacts for affected projects; quantified delay costs: Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Strengthens due process for property owners by ensuring a public hearing cannot be skipped when the purpose is habitat restoration or addressing climate variability (Bill s. 10(11.1), s. 19(3)).
• Improves transparency and accountability because a hearing record is created and must be considered before confirmation (Bill s. 19(3)).
• Prevents “purpose masking,” since the rule applies even if the environmental purpose is not stated or not listed as the primary purpose (Bill s. 10(11.1), s. 19(3)).
• Targets only procedural rights; it does not block or overturn environmental projects, but ensures objectors can be heard (Bill s. 10, s. 19).
• Applies narrowly to federal expropriations, avoiding wider disruption to provincial systems. Data unavailable on broader spillovers.

Opponents' View#

• Could slow urgent climate adaptation or habitat projects because Cabinet can no longer waive the hearing step, extending timelines for projects like flood mitigation or shoreline realignment (Bill s. 10(11.1)).
• Creates uneven treatment by adding mandatory process for environmental/climate purposes but not for other public purposes such as defense or transportation, which may still get waivers (Bill s. 10(11)).
• Uses broad terms (“addressing, directly or indirectly, climate variability”), which may trigger disputes over whether a project falls under the no-waiver rule, increasing legal risk and uncertainty (Bill s. 10(11.1), s. 19(3)).
• May raise administrative costs and require additional staff time to run hearings; no cost estimates are provided. Data unavailable.
• The “regardless of whether” language may prompt agencies to reframe project purposes, leading to challenges over intent and mixed-purpose projects (Bill s. 10(11.1), s. 19(3)).