The modernization of the Expropriation Act aims to reduce the costs of public projects such as a structuring mode of transportation. Its critics speak instead of cheap expropriation, an exception in the Canadian legal environment which opens the door to possible abuse of power.
Presented by Minister of Transport Geneviève Guilbault, Bill 22 changes the rules setting the compensation to be paid to the expropriated owner. In short, he will receive less than what he was entitled to receive until now. For its part, the expropriating party will be able to achieve its goals more quickly and at lower cost.
As parliamentarians hear civil society in parliamentary committee, three groups are warning lawmakers against the risk of abuses if Bill 22 on expropriation is adopted as it is worded.
“On reading it, we sense that the expropriated party was never consulted to develop the bill,” said Isabelle Melançon, head of the Urban Development Institute of Quebec (IDU), the real estate developers’ lobby, on the phone. . Only representatives of the expropriating party were consulted. Rights are withdrawn from the expropriated. From the moment there is an imbalance, there is danger. »
“The fact that it is expensive to carry out an expropriation is a bulwark that protects the rights of citizens,” says Daniel Dufort, CEO of the Montreal Economic Development Institute (IEDM), a pressure group. in favor of the law of the market. The moment we set the bar lower, it opens the door to abuses. The right to property is the fundamental right in a free economy. »
The MEI maintains that the decline in property rights will have a negative impact on the business climate and on investment decisions in Quebec.
The Order of Approved Appraisers of Quebec (OEAQ) does not mince its words in its 87-page brief. “There is a potential for impoverishment of the expropriated and a weighting favorable to the abuse of the rights available to the expropriating bodies. »
Of the 244 articles contained in the bill, the OEAQ requests the withdrawal or modifications to no less than 130 articles. The organization deplores in particular that the definitions of market value and best and most profitable use move away from those recognized at the international level “and distort the practice of evaluation for expropriation purposes according to generally recognized principles “.
No less critical, the IDU opposes sections 73 to 133 of the bill in its 52-page brief presented on Wednesday.
Among the criticisms made by the IDU, there is the omission in article 87 to rule out planning blight or disguised expropriation when the time comes to determine the market value of a building subject to a process of expropriation, as the courts have long established.
The planning blight represents “the laws and regulations and the actions and omissions of the expropriating authority or on its initiative with a view to the expropriation”.
Let’s take the example of a city that changes the residential zoning of vacant land to park zoning and then proceeds with the expropriation. Current rules say that we must rule out this change in park zoning when the time comes to assess the value of the expropriated property. Bill 22 removes this provision, according to the IDU.
“These new rules are not found in the expropriation laws of other Canadian jurisdictions,” argues the IDU. […] These new rules risk harming the economic attractiveness of Quebec, at a time when [society is called upon] to mobilize to resolve the housing crisis. »
The Order of Approved Appraisers of Quebec (OEAQ) adds: “PL22 could open the door to cases of disguised expropriations or blight planning. »
For the municipal authorities, which called for reform, Bill 22 aims to enable virtuous projects such as parks to be quickly carried out by simply paying the equivalent of fair compensation to the owner who is expropriated from his land.
According to the point of view of the Union of Municipalities of Quebec (UMQ), Bill 22, by abandoning the value to the owner and moving closer to the market value, finally modernizes the law in the direction of Ontario and of British Columbia. An assertion that the IDU disputes.
For their part, professors Jean-Philippe Meloche, of the University of Montreal, and Danièle Pilette, of UQAM, view Bill 22 favorably and are not worried about possible abuses.
“There’s good reason to think the bill is a good idea to begin with,” Mr. Meloche said by phone. The idea is to get closer to a market value when we carry out an expropriation rather than a punitive value. » According to him, the application of this principle will lower the costs of projects in Quebec.
He gives the example of golf courses where there is often overbidding on expropriation. “Judgments rendered on certain expropriations were ridiculous because there was no link with the market value of the property given its use,” he underlines. He would also be surprised if the law discouraged real estate investment.
This version of Law 22 does not provide anything to oblige cities to ultimately carry out the project at the source of the expropriation.
“If we carry out expropriations, it takes money. The constraint is the availability of money for the municipal sector,” retorts Professor Danièle Pilette, who does not believe that the use of expropriations will increase because of the proposed changes.
