Urban planning is not a federal jurisdiction , where Stephen Guilbeault, Minister of the Environment, said that people in communities vulnerable to natural disasters resulting from climate warming may have to consider relocation.

Explaining, "If we know that an area will be flooded or severely hit by hurricanes, is it reasonable for us as governments – not only the federal government but at other levels of government – to work with people, and maybe we have to move them?

Guilbeault said in an interview, "What we don’t necessarily have at this stage is all the analyses to be able to try and predict where these natural disasters will occur. But it might be that we have to tell people, 'Your area is highly vulnerable to these disasters and it would be better for you to move.'

Adding, "Now, can we force people to move? I mean, obviously urban planning is not a federal jurisdiction."

Ottawa is expected to release its national adaptation strategy in just under a month, ahead of the UN COP 27 conference in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt. But the idea of relocation is already being discussed in some communities hit by post-tropical storm Fiona in Atlantic Canada and Quebec. Brian Patton, mayor of the Newfoundland city of Port au Basque, which saw many homes destroyed or washed away by the sea, said, "The whole community does not have to move, of course."

On the other hand, Barbara Dueron, who runs an antiques shop on the north shore of Prince Edward Island, said, "We have a group of people who have nothing left here, their homes were destroyed, their possessions destroyed ... they don’t want to live here anymore.

Adding, relocation is not an easy option to accept.

She said the two-story building housing her company "was just lifted because of flood waters and was blasted on the fence at the top of the hill."

She also said she intends to put the building back in place and raise it above flood water levels. Dueron said many people who own homes in the area rely on the sea for their livelihood. She said, "[There is] a dock used by lobster fishermen, oyster fishermen, and mussel fishermen, well, for ten months of the year. So it can never be moved."

Dueron said the federal government should instead provide funding to rebuild the sand dunes destroyed by Hurricane Juan when it hit Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island in February 2004.

Explaining that the federal Environment Ministry recently acknowledged it had spent most of the $3.3 billion allocated for disaster mitigation. Ryan Nees from the Canadian Climate Institute said a lot of money will have to be spent every year to protect Canadians and their property from the catastrophic effects of climate change. He said, "The funding they provide comes from everyone’s tax money. More disasters, more rebuilding means more taxes or fewer services. That’s the trade-off. A slowing economy also means fewer jobs," he said. Nees said moving away from fossil fuels is essential, as well as spending money on prevention.

He said, "Every dollar you spend on proactive adaptation can save up to $15 in damage avoidance costs." Mike Savage, mayor of Halifax, who currently chairs the Big City Mayors Caucus of the Canadian Federation of Municipalities, told CBC News that government funds can be used for infrastructure adaptation projects, such as burying power lines, raising buildings above flood levels, building new fire-resistant structures among others. Savage said, "It affects large and small communities across the country. It’s the biggest issue of our time and we have to take it seriously."

"I’m not suggesting it’s easy. There are a lot of demands for money." Guilbeault said the government is still working on determining how much more should be spent on mitigation. The Expropriation Act allows the federal government to take control of land and property if it is "required by the Crown for a public work or any other public purpose."

Provinces and territories have their own expropriation laws. Ankie Smit, a professor at Windsor Law School and director of its Cities Centre, said expropriation is generally a "last" measure that should not be used lightly—especially to move entire communities. Smit said, "Clearly the impacts are very severe, not only the economic fabric but the social fabric of communities is often destroyed by doing these things." She added that the more severe natural disasters caused by climate change might justify expropriation in some cases.

 Ankie added, "If these are communities at risk of disappearing, that is something we have to think about as foresight, and also think through from an economic perspective, the ultimate cost it will cost the government and public money so that we can keep those communities where they are."

Smit said if the government chooses to expropriate property or land, the owner usually negotiates the sale to the government—they don’t have many legal options to challenge the decision. She said, "The possibility of legally challenging these kinds of expropriation is relatively limited, and often confined more to questions about the amount of compensation rather than the validity of the reason for expropriation in the first place."

Sherry Metcalfe, a professor at Queen’s Law School, said any attempt to expropriate a community might be more of a political challenge for governments than a legal one. She said, "The government has broad legal powers to expropriate property." Metcalfe agreed with Smit that there may be cases where the benefits of government relocation outweigh the costs.

She said such a decision would be more difficult if it affected Indigenous communities with longstanding ties to the land.

She said, "Clearly, there are some communities at great risk from serious climate impacts from Indigenous communities, and I think it is a totally different conversation and relationship with the land." "So, obviously for those communities, retreat and expropriation ... that’s not a viable response." 

Edited by: Yusra Bamtraf