Honourable senators, I am pleased to participate today in the discussion at third reading of Bill S-273, the Chignecto Isthmus Dykeland System act, championed by our colleague and my fellow Maritimer Senator Quinn. I do so as critic for this legislation.

It is encouraging, especially for those of us in Atlantic Canada, to see this important legislation steadily progress through our chamber’s mechanisms of review. At this point in the process, I trust we are all well familiar with the frequently mentioned topographical term at hand, “isthmus,” which refers to a narrow strip of land that separates two large bodies of water and connects two large land masses. In this case, the Chignecto Isthmus separates the Northumberland Strait in the Gulf of St. Lawrence from the Bay of Fundy to the southwest and connects the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

This geographical position and vital role of this isthmus are what make this discussion pertinent, colleagues.

As I outlined at second reading, this 13-mile-wide strip of land connecting Nova Scotia to the North American continent exists in unique circumstances. It is the only land link between Nova Scotia and the mainland of Canada and, as such, serves a vital role to industry and our economy. Over $35 billion in trade transits the corridor annually, as well as 15,000 vehicles daily and millions of people annually.

The daily activity across this corridor directly serves both Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, and its importance cannot be overstated. This small strip of land is essentially a land bridge, and all roads, rail service, fibre optic telecommunications and pipelines transiting this region depend on this corridor.

Furthermore, this area sits only slightly above sea level, wedged between two large bodies of water — one of which having the highest, lowest and strongest tides in the world. This presents particular risks and vulnerabilities that must be mitigated to avoid catastrophic safety and economic consequences for Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and the rest of Canada.

It must be noted that although the need for a dyke system on the isthmus is not a solely modern necessity — some of the earthen dykes in the area were established by the Acadians and date back to the late 17th century — the risks to and pressures on the system are now exacerbated by the threat of rising sea levels and the increasing frequency of severe weather events on the Atlantic coast.

As I stated at second reading, scientists have noted that with ocean surface temperatures rising along the eastern seaboard, the Atlantic coast is becoming more susceptible to tropical storms and hurricanes. They are increasing in intensity and frequency, bringing heavy wind, rain, dangerous ocean swells and a trail of destruction for Atlantic Canadians.

We in the Maritimes are not unfamiliar with foul weather, but I can attest to the fact that these weather events — record rainfalls, tropical storms, hurricanes, snowstorms and even forest fires — are occurring more frequently than during any other period I can remember from my lifetime. It is understandable that the governments and residents of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland have increased anxieties about the adequacy of the aging dyke system at Chignecto, and it is not without reason that there is an expectation that the federal government will take responsibility for the initiative.

I will refrain from repeating much of the historical background I provided in my second reading speech, but there is some historical context that is relevant to the matter at hand.

In 1948, after persistent pressure from Maritimers who recognized that the dykelands required significant enhancements, Parliament passed the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, which obligated the federal government to pay for 100% of the construction and reconstruction of dykes and dams in the area. Now, 75 years later, the same dykes need to be replaced, upgraded or reinforced at an estimated cost of $650 million.

What would happen, colleagues, if there were a failure of the dated infrastructure? What if a weather event suddenly made this narrow corridor impassable? Nova Scotia would effectively become an island. Our lifeline would be cut. Newfoundland would also be greatly affected. Not only would this be devastating for the people and businesses of Nova Scotia and Atlantic Canada, it would have far-reaching consequences affecting our national economy and industries.

The Chignecto Isthmus is a vital trade and utility corridor for the entire country.

Since the federal government has the responsibility for interprovincial trade, the New Brunswick and Nova Scotia governments believe that Ottawa should take on 100% of the cost. But the federal government is only offering to cover 50% through the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund — which, of course, would drain it for any other projects that may need funding.

For reasons I’ll outline, this is not only unfair, but also unjust and unequal.

Senator Quinn’s bill proposes to declare the dyke-land system at Chignecto to be for the general advantage of Canada — a policy principle that has its foundation in our Constitution and which allows for the federal government to assume jurisdiction over works that it deems to be in the national interest.

The Fathers of Confederation provided Parliament with a declaratory power to determine works that are in the national interest, transferring jurisdiction for those works to the federal level. As we’ve discussed, what Senator Quinn is proposing is not unprecedented.

In 2014, the Harper government enacted the New Bridge for the St. Lawrence Act, in which it declares the Champlain Bridge in Montreal and related works to be for the general advantage of Canada.

Found to be structurally unsound, the future of the Champlain Bridge needed to be addressed, but the Government of Quebec and the City of Montreal claimed they could not afford the costs. However, the need was urgent and in the national interest, hence the decision of the Harper government to assist in the construction of the new Champlain Bridge and the use of the declaratory power in doing so.

This commitment by the Harper government, it must be noted, came with the reasonable and financially responsible understanding that the new bridge in Montreal would have a toll in order to recoup the hefty upfront costs paid for by the federal taxpayer. I believe that user-pay is the best way to finance locally used infrastructure such as bridges. The City of Montreal could have used a toll structure on all of its bridges to control peak traffic flow and raise revenue.

However, as we now know, after the election of the Trudeau government, the decision to toll the new Champlain Bridge was dropped. Instead, the new Trudeau government gifted to Montreal an expensive and important piece of infrastructure that is unquestionably a municipal and provincial responsibility. The new bridge is to be paid for exclusively by the Canadian taxpayer, with the considerable price tag of $4.2 billion.

Colleagues, do not hear what I’m not saying. I agree that the replacement of the Champlain Bridge was in the national interest and of vital importance to our economy and our country — although it is a municipal bridge and, thus, a provincial bridge and responsibility. However, the federal government has seen fit to use the declaratory power on a major infrastructure project and has footed the entirety of the massive costs. This is now a matter of precedent.

All regions, provinces and Canadians should be treated equally — especially when there is a well-established precedent of the federal government providing large sums of taxpayer dollars to one part of the country for infrastructure projects. There should not be an outright refusal to take responsibility for projects of a similar nature in the Atlantic region. The major difference is that the isthmus issue crosses provincial boundaries, which automatically makes it a federal responsibility. No sleight of hand is necessary for it to qualify.

Unfortunately, in my region, we are far too familiar with the feeling of second-class citizenship in the eyes of the federal government. But where there is precedent comes the reasonable expectation of equitable treatment, and that the government of our federation will provide equally for all Canadians.

Why is it fair today for Prince Edward Islanders and those who visit the island to continue to pay tolls, while other bridges paid for by the federal government are exempt — especially when infrastructure like the Confederation Bridge is, in actuality, the responsibility of the federal authority? These are reasonable questions.

The federal government has now covered the full cost of a new $4.2-billion Champlain Bridge in Montreal, free of tolls, in order to maintain the economic corridor that it provides. With $20 billion worth of annual goods crossing from the Island of Montreal to the south shore of the St. Lawrence, I accept the view that this was a justifiable federal investment.

In the interests of regional fairness, surely the same logic should be applied to vital infrastructure of national interest in the Maritimes. The Isthmus of Chignecto is a critical choke point, with $35 billion of annual business, and the cost of the proposed solution is merely one seventh the cost of the Champlain Bridge.

Last month, the Trudeau government announced $1 billion to purchase and maintain the Quebec Bridge in Quebec City, describing the infrastructure as “a critical regional transportation link, a strategic freight corridor, and an important element of the Canadian supply chain.” The description of that corridor sounds awfully familiar.

The new money to maintain another trade corridor in Quebec did not go unnoticed in Nova Scotia.

In response to the announcement, the Nova Scotia government released a statement expressing their continued frustration with the federal government and their neglect for our region, stating:

We deserve to be treated fairly, as other jurisdictions have been in the past. Today, once again, the federal government is choosing to neglect us as it favours others.

It continues:

The isthmus sees around $100 million worth of goods pass through it every single day, including food that feeds Canadians, vehicles, forestry products, critical supplies for manufacturing in other parts of the country and more. It also allows people to travel to the province for important medical appointments, education and to access other Atlantic provinces.

It further states:

We have repeatedly asked the federal government to acknowledge its responsibility of this project as it is of national significance and if it were to be lost, the whole country would feel the impact.

The statement concludes:

The federal government has a responsibility to treat all Canadians equally and should not be favouring one province over another. I want to once again urge the federal government to show leadership and fully fund this project before it is too late.

In a CBC article, Premier Houston took direct aim at the Liberal members of Parliament representing Nova Scotia:

It starts to look more and more embarrassing for our Liberal members of Parliament in this province . . . to be part of a caucus who is being so unresponsive to such an important, important issue for the province that they represent.

At Transport Committee hearings on the bill, New Brunswick Premier Higgs shared in this frustration of lack of regional fairness, urging senators to recognize the need for equal treatment.

Premiere Higgs stated the following:

. . . the Government of Canada bears the ultimate responsibility for securing the isthmus, as it has done over the past 150 years to build roads and rails that connect this country from sea to sea to sea.

He continued:

A decade ago, Parliament used the declaratory power, causing the Government of Canada to assume full jurisdictional responsibility and make the policy decision to build and maintain the Champlain Bridge across the St. Lawrence River in Montreal, a project wholly located within the province of Quebec. As a matter of regional fairness and respect, I ask that senators treat this request by the Atlantic provinces no differently.

Nova Scotia’s Minister of Public Works, Kim Masland, also attended committee hearings where she further outlined the grounds for the federal government taking responsibility for the project as it is in the national interest. She spoke to the detrimental effects that a failure of the dykes at Chignecto would have on the supply chain and food security:

Many of our agricultural producers ship their products nationally using this corridor, helping to feed Canadians. Feed for livestock often comes from outside our province, which is critical to farming, especially in the poultry, dairy and beef sectors. Our farmers and communities also rely on the isthmus to transport food that’s processed outside our province. The fresh Nova Scotia lobster, scallops and other seafood that have become a favourite across the country would not be available in restaurants and grocery stores. It cannot be overstated that without the isthmus, there will be serious challenges to the food supply chain. The goods that pass through it quite literally keep food on the shelves and people fed.

I will note as well that both the New Brunswick and Nova Scotia legislatures have unanimously passed resolutions supporting this legislation.

Our Transport Committee also heard from a variety of witnesses, including departmental officials, legal and academic experts and Indigenous representatives.

With regard to legal questions concerning constitutional authority and the use of the declaratory power, I believe Senator Quinn has provided valid and sufficient reasoning on the matter and an accurate summation of the supportive testimony heard at committee.

Colleagues, as I stated at second reading, but which bears repeating, it’s not uncommon for Maritimers to feel forgotten or treated like second-class citizens by governments in Ottawa. In fact, it was foreseen by our Fathers of Confederation. When John A. Macdonald and the Fathers of Confederation met for two weeks in Charlottetown, a full six days were spent solely on the creation of the Senate and its composition. They established a Senate that is formed on the basis of regional representation. Although we are appointed by province, our representation is regional, and we have to remind ourselves that one of our duties is to ensure regional fairness.

This bill is not an attack on Quebec. It is not to say that Quebec should not be provided with suitable funds for infrastructure projects that are in the national interest. The point is that we have an infrastructure project in the Maritimes that is without a doubt in the national interest, and the federal government refuses to accept full responsibility for the project despite actively providing full funding for vastly more expensive projects in other parts of the country — projects that do not cross provincial boundaries, which are solely federal responsibilities under the divisions of powers in our Constitution.

The protection of this vital interprovincial corridor is in the national interest — that is plainly obvious — and when in the national interest, the standards that apply in one part of the country must apply in every part of the country.

I commend Senator Quinn for the leadership he has shown in championing this initiative. It is unfortunate, however, that we in Atlantic Canada would have to resort to a Senate public bill in this chamber in order to facilitate action and equal treatment from the federal government. The elected government, which presently controls the majority of seats in Atlantic Canada, should be taking the lead on this.

I support this bill as amended, colleagues, and I encourage you to do the same. Thank you.

I am of the opinion that this is probably a project that needed to be done yesterday. The longer we wait to deal with it, the more we’re rolling the dice before something of a more disastrous nature occurs. I think we were ready to do this yesterday.