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

Alto opponents stand on an overpass to protest against the high-speed rail project, in Kingston, Ont., on Aug. 28. Photo by Elliot Ferguson/The Kingston Whig-Standard/Postmedia NetworkArticle contentA government that can take your land before buying it is not merely building a railway. It’s testing the limits of property rights.

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.

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.

Columnist Jesse Kline keeps you up to date with what’s happening in Israel and the effects of antisemitism on life here in Canada. Friday mornings.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of Channel Israel will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

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.

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.

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.

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