The federal government's Alto high-speed rail project, planned to span roughly 1,000 km between Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec City at an estimated cost of $60 billion to $90 billion, must clear a higher justification bar before exercising expropriation powers granted under the High-Speed Rail Act, according to Joseph Quesnel, a senior fellow with the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy.

Writing in the National Post, Quesnel argues that the Crown corporation created in 2022 to oversee Alto, and the project's subsequent designation as "transformative," generate political momentum rather than demonstrate necessity. He frames the dispute around whether a line connecting four major cities should be able to expropriate private land along its corridor without first attempting negotiated purchase.

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

What powers does the High-Speed Rail Act grant?

The legislation, passed earlier this year, allows Alto to potentially expropriate private property along the proposed route without first trying to purchase it from owners. The Alto Crown corporation was created in 2022 to oversee the project, which is funded primarily by taxpayers.

Quesnel acknowledges that expropriation is sometimes necessary — citing hospitals, bridges, utility lines and highways — but argues Alto does not qualify as emergency infrastructure. "High-speed rail is not an emergency service. It is a transportation choice for commuters and travellers," he wrote. He adds that, on the government's part, Alto is a policy choice about where to invest in infrastructure.

What test does Quesnel propose for the project?

Quesnel outlines four criteria Alto must satisfy before any compulsory acquisition proceeds:

• A substantial public need, distinct from a government preference
• Benefits that are broadly shared and sufficiently certain to justify compulsory acquisition
• A comparison against less intrusive alternatives, including upgrades to existing rail lines and alternative routes
• Proof that the specific route is necessary, not merely that a railway is useful

He notes that the 1,000-km alignment has not been finalized, land rights have not been secured, and environmental and impact assessments remain incomplete. Active development, he argues, does not mean every parcel within a prospective corridor is destined for public use.

What data does Quesnel say the government should publish?

The analyst calls on Ottawa to release ridership estimates, economic growth projections, environmental gains and operating cost forecasts. He also wants clarity on who benefits — frequent travellers, urban centres, developers near the stations — and who bears the costs: taxpayers, rural communities that will not use the service, and property owners whose land falls within the corridor.

What compensation issues does he flag?

Market-value compensation alone is insufficient, Quesnel writes. Full compensation for relocation, business losses and damage to remaining land matters as well. Even then, he argues, "a cheque does not make an involuntary transaction voluntary."

He itemises the personal burdens a corridor can impose: a family losing land, fields divided by track that affects drainage or blocks farm equipment, a business losing its location, and a homeowner retaining part of a property but losing privacy, access, value and quiet.

What is the broader policy argument?

Quesnel frames property rights as more than compensation: they provide the security that allows owners to invest, build and plan without government changing the rules. Making compulsory acquisition easy, he warns, encourages planners to treat private land as an input rather than a right, weakens the incentive to negotiate, and can generate the resistance, distrust and litigation that delay infrastructure delivery.

"Canada does not need to choose between building major infrastructure and respecting property rights. In fact, it will build better infrastructure if it respects them," he wrote.

He closes: "A railway can connect cities. It must not sever the principle that citizens own what is theirs."

What happens next?

Alto remains in pre-construction. The Crown corporation has yet to finalise the route, secure land rights or complete environmental and impact assessments. Whether Ottawa publishes the ridership, cost and benefit data Quesnel demands — and how it weighs negotiated acquisition against expropriation as alignments are chosen — will shape landowner response, project timelines and the likelihood of litigation along the Quebec City–Toronto corridor.