Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-216, An Act to declare the Chignecto Isthmus Dykeland System and related works to be for the general advantage of Canada, which was introduced in the Senate in May 2025 by the Honourable Senator Quinn.

We all agree that funding the isthmus is important. We agree that this needs to be done. The issues are not with that, but with the legal matter of defining the proper jurisdiction.

Bill S-273, this bill’s predecessor, was introduced in the Senate in September 2023. After that, a question from the Governments of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia was sent to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. Bill S-273 was then sent to the Transport and Communications Committee, which did a fantastic job. It received third reading in the Senate in June 2024 and was sent to the other place, where it never even received first reading.

Some would argue that we should just pass the bill again on that basis, but I would argue that the situation in 2024 and the situation now are different. Bill S-216 needs to be assessed based on the current context and knowledge rather than that of 2024.

What has changed? There are two different significant developments that, I would say, have changed the dynamics of this bill. First, in March of this year, the federal government and the provinces reached an agreement on funding the project: 50% federal and 25% for each province, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, plus extending cost overruns.

These funds were allocated to the project from the federal program called the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia submitted a joint application in early 2023. Since federal funding is involved, among federal legislation applicable are, among others, the duty to consult Indigenous communities and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Meanwhile, in July 2023, the provinces sought to have the jurisdiction determined by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. The court released its decision in June 2025 and declined to make a ruling, basically saying that the provinces failed to provide an argument or specific infrastructure details that might allow them to assess the jurisdiction, let alone, to support federal jurisdiction, and that the reference was largely political.

However, when you read the decision and the factum that was part of this court case, they reveal important facts that we need to understand before this bill is sent to committee.

Clearly, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal identified the historical fact that the Province of Nova Scotia has been legislating the isthmus area for over 175 years, and the Province of New Brunswick, since early 1877. That predates the Confederation.

The decision notes that it is unclear how much the isthmus project is directly related to interprovincial communications, transportation, et cetera, insofar as the boundaries of the area in question are unclear, and there are clearly local roads, private property, farmland and other aspects that are part of it, all of which are currently under the constitutional jurisdictions of the provinces. I have proof of what was said to the courts right here.

Additionally, when you read the study submitted as evidence to the court by the Government of Nova Scotia, Figure 1.1 shows that the isthmus encompasses an entire region currently governed by many provincial statutes. It also identifies at least 19 acts that would require permits to do the work in the area — four federal, eight from Nova Scotia and seven from New Brunswick — notwithstanding the many provincial statutes that deal with the properties involved, i.e., agriculture, forestry, private land, wind farms and buildings, to name just a few. There’s also a school in the area.

We also learned two important elements for our consideration. First, during the committee’s study of Bill S-273, it was said that the fact that Parliament unilaterally declares the isthmus to be under executive federal jurisdiction is not a declaration that includes funding. It only means that the isthmus area, however it is defined, comes under federal legislation.

Considering that there is now a funding agreement in place for the project, we must ask, are we derailing this project with this bill? I have serious concerns.

The second element is that, if we pass this bill, we could potentially remove the provincial legislation dealing with an unidentified area. This bill could create an area in which there is a total void of provincial legislation and regulation.

I am certainly not convinced that Nova Scotia and New Brunswick would appreciate, at this juncture of the project, to be without jurisdiction in an undefined area. Making this claim of jurisdiction under these circumstances will have consequences that may be unforeseen, but could cause very real problems down the road.

We should not treat this bill as if nothing has changed. It has changed. The information on which we based our decision has evolved, and we should take that into account. It is our duty to assess this bill in the current context, not in the context of the bill we had in front of us in 2024.

We agree that this is a needed project, that this needs to be done, that the funding is important, although resolved. The issue is not with that, but we do need to assess this in terms of the legal and constitutional concerns that it brings up. It is not clear to me that we should be declaring this as federal jurisdiction. I am concerned about what this will mean for the provinces to legislate themselves and what it could mean for future jurisdiction claims in the area and elsewhere that need to be looked at.

As I noted above, the isthmus has vague boundaries. Every submission, even the study that was done, all look at different areas, so it is absolutely unclear. Once we accept federal jurisdiction over this area, what does it mean in relation to the other elements within those boundaries?

I would strongly suggest that if this bill moves forward, we send it to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee so that the committee can have a very serious look.

It may also be prudent — I would say very prudent — to ask the New Brunswick and the Nova Scotia governments beforehand if they agree to have no more jurisdiction in this area, not knowing when similar and, particularly, protective legislation can be enacted federally in relatively short term.

We have this entire area where the provincial jurisdictions would be null and void. Their statutes wouldn’t apply anymore. There’s no way that we can expect the federal government to turn around, in a relatively short time, to overtake that region. How would the people in that region react to that?

I honestly believe that with the unforeseen legal implications — and if we get the endorsement from the New Brunswick and Nova Scotia governments, then and only then should we send this bill to the Legal Committee for a fulsome debate on these very important aspects. Thank you.

Would the honourable senator take a question or two?

Yes.

Thank you for your remarks, senator. I’m a mariner, and I’m very familiar with the Bay of Fundy and the area we’re talking about. I’ve driven through there on many days when it was very foggy. I commend you for bringing that fogginess to your speech because your speech has raised some unclear intonations.

In the last Parliament, you asked a question of Senator Gold about the Nova Scotia case. You were wondering, having had 21 years in at that point, if such an occurrence was happening where we were trying to bring a piece of legislation forward when there’s a court case. Senator Gold talked about it not being our role to dictate to the courts. He said at that time that it was the government’s position to wait for the courts to render a decision.

I would argue that the courts have made a decision. They’ve refused to answer the reference question. I’ll talk about that in my speech, but they refused to answer the reference question put before them by the Nova Scotia government. The reason they did that was they didn’t want to influence any ensuing discussions that may occur in the Parliament of Canada. Do you think the Nova Scotia courts made a valid observation?

Thank you for your question, Senator Quinn. I’ve read — as you can see — the Nova Scotia court’s decision, and it relates to my concern.

At paragraph 39 of the decision, it says, “The inability to distinguish between valid schemes of provincial legislation and federal legislation is especially significant in this case. . . .” That is the point that I’ve made.

By the way, Senator Quinn, I didn’t intervene on your first bill, because there was a political undercurrent, and, furthermore, it was evident that, on principle, I and, I believe, this chamber in general should not intervene in legislation if the specific issue is before the courts. It’s a question of respect for the courts.

But that being said, in regard to my second point for the area in question, the court says —

Senator Ringuette, your time is up. Are you asking for more time?

Yes.

Is leave granted, honourable senators?

The court said:

Nova Scotia did not define what protective infrastructure it was referring to in the Question, but their submissions in March, both written and oral, focused on the dykes on the Bay of Fundy side of the Isthmus. In the May hearing, Nova Scotia resiled from that position and spoke about the application of the Question to other protective infrastructure.

It further says:

The boundaries of the Isthmus are not referred to in any parties’ submissions —

— nobody knows what the boundaries are —

— It is approximately 21 kilometres wide and separates the waters of the Bay of Fundy from those of the Northumberland Strait. . . .

Then, again about the area, in paragraph 27, it says a map of the isthmus:

. . . shows the town of Amherst, Nova Scotia very close to dykes and the town of Sackville, New Brunswick within mere metres. In 2021, there were 3,047 private dwellings . . . .

Then it goes on, again in regard to the area, because it’s undefined, even in the study:

The Question also suffers from an imprecise description of the infrastructure that allegedly protects the inter-provincial transportation, trade and communication links across the Isthmus. . . .

. . . Nova Scotia resiled from that definition and said the Question could apply to other protective infrastructure. . . .

I can go on, on this issue, if you want me to and go through all the factums that I have here in regard to what was submitted in different areas.

Senator Quinn, I’ve heard what you were implying: Some people were working with Minister LeBlanc. I swear in this chamber that I’ve never spoken to Minister LeBlanc about this issue — and you can have that little smile if you want, but it’s the reality. I’m making this argument because I have concerns for the citizens living in those areas, and I have concerns in regard to what will happen to them if we move forward without knowing the legal and unintended consequences of this bill.

I’m serious about this. I believe you have good connections with the Government of New Brunswick and the Government of Nova Scotia, and we’re going on a break. Maybe it would be the opportune time, Senator Quinn, to have another conversation and see if those governments still want this legislation to move forward. That should be the first step that we undertake on this issue.

Thank you.

Will the senator take another question?

Yes.

Thank you for that.

You’re referring to the pieces — there are pieces of that court decision. The bottom line, as I understand it — and I’m not a lawyer — is that the question referred to the courts was dismissed by the court.

In terms of what you’ve said, you’ve talked about the things that were happening at the time of the bill. I can tell you that in the Province of Nova Scotia and the Province of New Brunswick, the governments of the day unanimously approved and all parties voted in favour of supporting this particular thing.

I have one other comment, and the question follows: This morning and over the last two Transport and Communications Committee meetings, we’ve been hearing about the high-speed rail network. It is also embodied in the budget implementation act that the declaratory power would be used. That’s an undefined corridor as well, which was one of the issues we talked about this morning.

I’m failing to see why the declaratory power could be a valid tool in this budget, which I assume you would support, but now I’m not sure you would because it’s a declaratory power being used in an undefined area. In the case of the budget, do you see that the declaratory power is a valid tool?

Senator Ringuette, your time is up. Are you asking for more time?

I would like to answer that question.

Is leave granted, honourable senators, for more time to answer this question?

Thank you for the question, Senator Quinn.

I guess we’re talking about apples and oranges. It was a little bit like when the issue of the Champlain Bridge was brought into the previous discussions on this bill. The Champlain Bridge was already owned by the federal government, and I haven’t seen the current budget bill — we’re studying it at the Banking Committee — but the declaratory power only provides jurisdiction; it doesn’t give automatic funding. I fail to see how your argument holds. It’s proven that it doesn’t bring any funds, but it does bring unforeseen consequences in regard to those two provinces. I don’t think we should proceed unless the two provinces say the circumstances have changed and they still agree they want that power, or if they say the circumstances have changed and they don’t want that power anymore.

We need to be clear on that. That’s my wish for the citizens in those areas.

Thank you.

On debate.

I wish to inform the Senate that if the Honourable Senator Quinn speaks now, his speech will have the effect of closing the debate on the motion for second reading of this bill.

It is moved by the Honourable Senator Clement, seconded by the Honourable Senator Petitclerc, that the debate be continued at the next sitting of the Senate.

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

All those in favour of the motion will please say “yea.”

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

The Hon. the Speaker: In my opinion the “yeas” have it.

I see two senators rising. Is there agreement on the length of the bell?

If there’s no agreement on the length of the bell, it will be one hour.

Pursuant to the rule of June 4, the bells will be interrupted at 4 p.m. for Question Period, and the debate will be continued after Question Period.