Should the government allow TransCanada to expropriate private property for the construction of the Keystone pipeline?

Yes, government can expropriate private property for public projects I don't really support the Keystone pipeline though

Yes, if the landowners are fairy compensated which means enough money to get a house of the same value and size nearby as well as a temporary living space so that they are able to find a home. They also shouldn't have to pay the mortgage for the first 3 months of owning the house.

I do not necessarily agree with the use and production of petroleum oil, but recognise that it is more currently available than some other renewable sources of fuel. This however should not be the only source of fuel and there should be more interest/research in replacing oil as a fuel for more renewable sources.

Yes, if the landowners are fairly compensated AND that's if the pipeline even goes through to begin with.

Only if there are no alternative solutions and only if the property owners are fairly compensated. the economy is important for the future of Canadians

Not, not unless the landowners are fairly compensated & all Indigenous communities in the area agree.

It should be supported if land owners are fairly compensated, and a reduction of oil production from tar sands.

No the government should respect private property. If a Private company wants to expropriate private property they must compensate a fair market prices

A stronger discussion should be had between the government and the first nation peoples to make a compromise between the two parties. The land should be protected while also allowing the pipeline to be built elsewhere to provide employment for the first nations peoples surrounding the area of the pipeline.

No, this may pressure private land owners into taking money at their long term jealth and safety

Only if the land owners agree to it with a fairly compensated agreement.

TransCanada should compensate for using their land and lost resources

Only if the landowners give permission and are fairly compensated

No the pipeline is a poor idea, why are we sending raw materials out of the country when we could refine and use them locally to reduce costs to the people that live here. Don’t get me started on how invasive it will be to the remaining wilderness. Stop obsessing over oil and gas, its non renewable and it will run out, its high time to move on from fossil fuels.

Only if the landowners agree to it AND are appropriately compensated

If owners are compensated. We should have a nationalized energy sector.

No, the Government should not be able to take private land freely from its people without good reasoning.

No, the government should never be allowed to expropriate private property

If people don’t want to sell the land go around? Government can piss off

Allow the pipeline by seeking consent from landlords and revive oil sands! Allow oil production in oil sands.

The government should only consider expropriation for critical infrastructure projects when there is a clear and overwhelming public benefit, all other reasonable alternatives have been exhausted, and landowners receive truly fair compensation that accounts for all potential impacts and losses, both tangible and intangible. The Keystone pipeline project did not, in my view, meet this high threshold.

No, and begin a serious transition away from fossil fuels by slowly shutting down oil production and supporting oil workers changing career

No, do not expropriate private land, but instead, grant an easement, with fair and ongoing compensation going to the landowner, indigenous lands only with their cooperation.

Not, not unless the landowners are fairly compensated and all Indigenous communities in the area agree.

They can build the pipeline, but they shouldn't be allowed to forcefully take way someone's property. They should consult the landowners first and only do it if they agree.

Yes but only if the landowners are fairly compensated & all Indigenous bands in the area agree to it.

Landowners deserve the rights of their lands, and should only be removed from it if they agree to it with fair compensation. The pipeline can always be redirected.

Yes, but a private company should not be the ones who do the project, the government should take it over, turn it into a state controlled industry and seize property as necessary so long as farmers and homeowners are compensated, corporate landowners will be given no compensation.

I believe its necessary for the economic future of Canada but also fairly compensating the land owners

Complicated, I think the landowners should be warned ahead of time and given more than fair compensation, but only if they consent to having their land used.

I don’t think the government has the right to take land in order to build the pipe line.

I do not feel strongly about the pipeline, one way or the other.

No, having the pipeline will reduce the incentive to switch to clean energy

There should at least be a consensus for the community.

If the owners of said property allow it and if allowed get paid compensation

Yes, if the landowners are fairly compensated and they agree to give up their land

Unqualified to answer

ion fucjing know

Yes, but only if the landowners agree to sign over their land and are fiarly compensated. Almost more like a sale than expropriation

ask local comunities and experts

Yes, but only on land that is not owned by anybody and/or any indigenous people.

Yes, unless the land is currently owned by Indigenous Peoples or is unceded land.

I'd rather see them pay right of way leases to land owners

No expropriation but allow negotiations. And get pipelines built to meet demand.

Yes as long as the company is held accountable to the communities their harming the most

Land expropriation is theft

Only with the permission of the landowners

Don’t really care

Don’t know enough to have an opinion

Yes, if the owner consents

Yes, if the private property is acquired fairly and equitably

Yes, but only if the owner consents

A long as it is agreed by both parties

Yes but only IF the land owner agrees to sell the land. If not then they have to move the layout of the pipeline

Yes, but with a requirement that the owners of the expropriated land receive royalties on the oil that flows through there in perpetuity including their heirs.

If the landowners are consulted and have come to an agreement

Yes, if there is a proper mitigation and compensation strategy.

If indigenous are all agreed AND the land owners are properly compensated

Not unless absolutely necessary to complete the project.

Yes. As long as the landowner agrees to sell

I believe they can negotiate the land from the owner, but not expropriation.

Not without fair compensation including a swap of equal size land and move cost included. Also start up costs if required.

Re-route, private companies should not be able to expropriate land or private property

Private property should not be able to be expropriated by anyone.

No, expropriation is wrong and the pipeline should only be built upon approval from all of the land owners.

If property owners are fairly compensated and treated with utmost respect re burial grounds and relocation plans etc. Civility and regard.

No, expropriation should be illegal

No, the owners should be given the right to negotiate for compensations and/or sales of the land.

Up to owners and extreme regulations must be met so it doesn’t hurt our environment.

No, do not build the pipeline and create a plan to replace the oil production in the tar sands with a more sustainable and environmentally friendly alternative

I am unsure at this moment/ don’t have enough information to formulate an opinion

the state should not have the right to expropriate land

As long as the landowners agree

Yes, but slowly transition to renewable energy.

Not without the approval of the landowners

No, expropriation should not be a viable practice

They should not use the government to force the landowners of their land, instead they should get the land themselves with a level of government support.

Do not know enough about the subject matter to form an opinion

Invest in more renewable energy projects.

no, find a better way but if it’s needed then the landowners need to be fairly compensated

as long as the landowners agree and are compensated

Yes, if the landowners are fairly compensated. I don't like oil but I think Keystone is a better alternative than the U.S. getting oil from Saudi Arabia.

If the landowners decides. This is his land he or she pay taxes.

Same as previous question answer. - Canadian Oil, processed in Canada, for Canadians, Only. End reliance on Imported Oil.

Yes, but theres need to be a way for it to be done safley without harming the community living their and the enviroment.

The existing pipelines are okay just dont make more

If landowners consent to allowing the pipeline to be built on their property

No they should not take the land, but compensate them for digging under their land.

We should be focusing our resources on cleaner alternatives.

No, kick TransCanada or have Canada work with federal, provincial and other pipeline related company to work on this pipeline.

Yes but the land owners should be more than fairly compensated. By law They should be offered portfolios of beautiful homes to choose one of , plus fair value market for their home, plus moving and storing expenses and incidentals , travel expenses, etc until they are fully comfortable in their beautiful new homes. And the company should be fully responsible for the safety of all of the assets of the person ie they cannot offer them a space that will not accommodate the person or is not fully to the liking and agreement of the person.

Yes is the land owners agree to allow them on their property.

Private property rights should be increased

No, but nationalize all oil, natural gas, and gasoline, keeping what is extracted from the tar sands for national use

Yes, if the owners are willing and fairly compensated

Yes, of the landowners have say and are more than fairly compensated for this may interfere with their long term family incomes

No, Put an Oil Refinery in Alberta.

Pipeline is necessary but shouldn't need to go through private property

Yes, with excellent compensation to land owners, transparency, flawless quality control, and rerouting to avoid any vulnerable environments.