Josh Dehaas: Why you should worry about Manitoba expropriating a long-term-care home
It could be your land, or home, that the government comes for next
By: Josh Dehaas
The Manitoba government says that it tried to purchase a long-term care home in Winnipeg, but was unable to come to an agreement with the owner, so they took it.
Uzoma Asagwara, Manitoba’s minister of health, seniors and long-term care, said the government has initiated the expropriation of the Golden Door Geriatric Centre to protect seniors, after the 78-bed care home stopped taking new patients last year and announced that it was intending to shut down and close. The province says it will now operate the facility under its own management and that the more than two dozen beds that became empty after new admissions stopped can now be filled.
This expropriation could hurt seniors in the end. It’s also the latest sign that Canada’s governments are pushing expropriation powers too far. Anyone who cares about private property and the economic growth that it fosters should be concerned.
Expropriation occurs when the government forces an owner to give up their property for some public purpose, usually in exchange for fair market value. Since there is no explicit constitutional protection for property owners in Canada, legislatures have created statutes that give premiers and ministers the power to force sales.
Sometimes expropriation is the only option to build important infrastructure such as highways or rail lines that can’t be put anywhere else. Even in these cases, it can be controversial. But forcing the sale of a building to the government when it could be purchased on the market or built elsewhere ought to prompt pushback.
In Manitoba, this is the second time in less than a year that Wab Kinew’s NDP government has decided to take something that doesn’t belong to it. Last year, the Kinew government began the process of expropriating private lands in Winnipeg known as the Lemay Forest, following controversy over a graveyard at the site. The owner had planned to build a 5,000-bed assisted living facility that could have taken pressure off the demand for long-term-care beds that the government now says it’s trying to solve with the Golden Door expropriation. (The Lemay Forest will now become a public park instead of housing.)
Manitoba’s misadventures highlight the main problem with expropriating land and buildings that aren’t needed to build critical public infrastructure. When the state protects private property rights, investors have the certainty they need to pool their money together and build businesses. Consider long-term-care homes. Investors will happily build more of them to meet demand if property is protected. And as supply and competition increases, prices tend to go down. The opposite is also true. Why would investors lend their capital and why would entrepreneurs build long-term-care homes if the government can just swoop in and take them? Manitoba’s move will translate into less investment in seniors’ housing, more competition for spaces, and higher prices.
It’s not just Manitoba’s NDP that’s been abusing expropriation powers. In Ontario, Progressive Conservative Premier Doug Ford has supported the planned expropriation of 770 acres of agricultural and residential lands in Wilmot Township, which the Region of Waterloo says it needs to offer a “shovel-ready” site for a “major employer.”
If an employer needs the land more than the farmers or the homeowners, why can’t they buy it themselves and pay the market price? If an industrial employer can’t afford the land, isn’t that a clear indication that it’s more productive in its present use?
What’s going on in Ontario seems obvious: big businesses are receiving special treatment so politicians can get a photo op of a ribbon-cutting at a future automotive (or similar) factory. That’s unseemly. It’s also bad for the economy, just like Manitoba’s expropriation. Big businesses might like the sound of cheaply assembled land, but if governments can kick farmers off their lands today, what’s to stop the government from nationalizing their factory tomorrow?
Ottawa’s new High-Speed Rail Network Act, which is part of the federal budget bill, should also give us pause. It would eliminate the requirement for Ottawa to negotiate a sale price for land needed for high-speed rail in Ontario and Quebec. Homeowners would receive whatever the government chooses to pay without any say in the matter. They should not be shortchanged so that well-connected companies can profit.
Now is the time for Canadians to push back against governments threatening to use their expropriation powers inappropriately. Taking people’s property should be a measure of last-resort for building infrastructure that can’t be built anywhere else, not a tool for political convenience. Without strong property rights, our economy will suffer.
Josh Dehaas is Litigation Director with the Canadian Constitution Foundation, a charity dedicated to defending Canadians’ rights and freedoms.
The Line is entirely reader and advertiser funded — no federal subsidy for us! If you value our work, have already subscribed, and still worry about what will happen when the conventional media finishes collapsing, please make a donation today. Please note: a donation is not a subscription, and will not grant access to paywalled content. It’s just a way of thanking us for what we do. If you’re looking to subscribe and get full access, it’s that other blue button!
The Line is Canada’s last, best hope for irreverent commentary. We reject bullshit. We love lively writing. Please consider supporting us by subscribing. Please follow us on social media! Facebook x 2: On The Line Podcast here, and The Line Podcast here. Instagram. Also: TikTok. BlueSky. LinkedIn. Matt’s Twitter. The Line’s Twitter. Jen’s Twitter. Contact us by email: lineeditor@protonmail.com.
There is more to this story that needs to be explained, why did they stop taking patients? why was it going to close? were there health and safety issues? what were the terms of the expropriation settlement? were these somehow not market driven?
Expropriation is knife that should be used as a last resort but sometimes is necessary when the free market does not operate as it should
This article mixes up entirely different scenarios. If as the article says the care home stopped accepting residents and was winding down it is very appropriate that the government intervened. Private for-profit corporations are risky providers of care services. 1. the residents are vulnerable; 2. the government is paying for the care services (including the upkeep and the mortgage on the building and may have been doing so for years). 3. too many for-profit care providers are only too willing to close down to realize a profit on their land investment leaving the government to pick up the pieces. Nonprofit community based organizations should be providing care services - they do not cut and run with the profit leaving vulnerable people at risk and misusing government tax dollars for private profit.