Chignecto Isthmus Dykeland System Bill

Honourable senators, in preparation for my remarks today, I found myself reflecting on what has transpired to bring us to this moment in debate and the misplaced hesitation to proceed with a bill that has widespread support, essentially, everywhere you look on the East Coast.

If one were to consider testimony from the prior Parliament in the chamber and in committee, unanimous support from legislative assemblies in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, letters of support from the Governments of Prince Edward Island as well as Newfoundland and Labrador, reports in local media of Atlantic Canada, support from Acadian, Indigenous and, indeed, local communities, as well as other stakeholders who see this as an important opportunity to safeguard the isthmus, one would bear witness to a loud rallying cry for federal leadership in the form of this legislation.

In fact, in the fall of 2025, La Société Nationale de l’Acadie passed a resolution endorsing this bill specifically. It is also supported by Amlamgog, or Fort Folly First Nation, whose traditional lands are in the Chignecto Isthmus, who also reaffirmed their support for this bill last fall.

All this underscores one of our primary responsibilities in representing and presenting issues from our region here in our independent Senate that might otherwise never be heard in our parliamentary process.

Thank you for allowing me to repeat to this chamber what I have said in three speeches across two parliaments — most recently, my first speech at second reading in June 2025 — for now, offering some further clarity on the necessity of this bill, as the issue is as pertinent as ever.

But since then, a court decision has come and gone, and it has been interpreted by some as suggesting that the passage of this bill would be an affront to the judiciary and could create a constitutional quandary. That could not be farther from the truth.

I thank Senator Ringuette for raising concerns she had in this chamber that, she believed, warranted careful examination. However, after consultation with relevant stakeholders, as well as with provincial and municipal officials and elected office‑holders, again, I can assure Senator Ringuette that her concerns have no basis in law.

First, are we derailing the Chignecto Isthmus rehabilitation project with this bill? The answer is no. In conversation with the Governments of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, they indicated that passing Bill S-216 would expedite consultation processes and the regulatory approvals pertaining to this project by a matter of years.

Given the rising tides in the area, every day saved in this process is reducing the risk of a potential humanitarian and infrastructure disaster should the dykes breach. If that happens, we will see the destruction of one of Canada’s most important corridors for trade and transportation, which will result in the Port of Halifax being cut off from the majority of its two-way trade. Much of that volume would divert to U.S. East Coast ports, and, like so many things in life, when the cargo is gone, it is no doubt gone forever.

Second, are we creating a total void of provincial legislation and regulations? Again, the answer is no. This has no basis in constitutional law. My office drafted this bill in coordination with the Attorneys General offices of the Provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and this hypothetical idea of a legislative gap was discussed and was determined to have no basis in law due to interpretive principles of constitutional law.

Simply, the use of the declaratory power does not invalidate provincial laws of general application without there being a federal substitute. Furthermore, this bill only applies to dykes, as defined in clause 2 of the bill itself, as “. . . a dyke, aboiteau or breakwater associated with the Chignecto Isthmus Dykeland System” within the Chignecto trade corridor.

In addition, addressing Senator Ringuette’s concerns, the bill does not affect schools, private lands, wind farms, et cetera, as she stated.

Furthermore, the declaratory power only applies to works. It cannot apply to unimproved land like forests or pastures. It certainly does not apply to the entire isthmus, as my colleague suggested in her speech. Therefore, this concern has no basis in constitutional law. Both governments agree with this assessment. There is no legislative void; the area is explicitly defined.

Finally, I took to heart the senator’s suggestion to seek reassurances from the Provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia that they agree with transferring jurisdiction, which is at the heart of the legislation. I did just that and, in fact, received assurances from New Brunswick Premier Susan Holt in person at a federal announcement at Port Saint John in mid-January. The prior unanimous resolutions of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick stand. She confirmed that, “Nothing has changed.”

Similarly, I subsequently had the opportunity to speak with the Nova Scotia Minister of Public Works, Minister Fred Tilley, who, likewise, after consultation with Premier Tim Houston, reaffirmed that same opinion. Further, my staff spoke with the Mayor of Tantramar, who indicated that local communities support this bill to ensure that their municipalities are protected from rising sea levels.

Colleagues, there is no untrodden or novel constitutional question before us regarding my bill. Bills involving the use of the declaratory power traditionally go to the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications because they deal with infrastructure. Again, this, in fact, is what is happening right now respecting the use of the declaratory power in Bill C-15, the Budget Implementation Act, for the proposed high-speed rail project connecting Quebec City and Toronto, Ontario. I struggle to see how anyone could find a difference in the application of the use of the declaratory power in this instance and that of the isthmus, as both are for the same principle, for the general advantage of Canada.

Colleagues, regarding the Court of Appeal reference, it does not use the same part of the Constitution, and any reference to that ruling in relation to Bill S-216 confuses the issue. It has no bearing or impact, from a legal perspective, on using the declaratory power. In fact, the court declined to answer the referenced question related to 92.10(a) of the Constitution because it was political. They did so on the basis that it is a policy decision.

Let me underline and highlight these next words concerning the question that courts considered: It is best left for politicians.

On October 23, Senator McNair highlighted from the court statement:

It is difficult to envision how members of Parliament would be guided in their deliberations by an advisory opinion requested by a provincial government from its Court of Appeal.

I couldn’t agree more with this statement. The court failed to see how they could help Parliament in their deliberation. It is, indeed, for politicians in Parliament to decide, and that is entirely the point. The declaratory power is all about federal leadership.

Senator Prosper spoke on this fact during his speech, discussing the difficulties faced by the Mi’kmaq, one nation that exists across two provinces. By virtue of the current arrangement, the nation has to engage with two different processes for the same issue. Engagement at a single level — the federal government, which would be the default should the isthmus project fall under federal jurisdiction — would not only harmonize requirements into a single jurisdiction by declaring that the Chignecto Isthmus project is for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces, but we are also ensuring that the duty to consult and the honour of the Crown are held to the highest standard.

As Senator Prosper further stated:

. . . without the leadership of Parliament to invoke the declaratory power, the Mi’kmaq peoples are left necessarily divided across an arbitrary boundary line in the Chignecto Isthmus. We are a people divided between two provincial environmental impact assessment schemes and caught between two provincially led consultation processes that have been, in many ways, proven to be deficient in their ability to address Mi’kmaq concerns.

Honourable senators, is it not to the general advantage of Canada to support the government’s priority of diversifying our country’s trade lanes and trading partners in order to lessen our dependency on trade with the United States?

Is it not to the general advantage of Canada to support the government and its partners in investing in major projects across the country that will strengthen our economy and whose success is strongly tied to our supply chains?

Is it not to the general advantage of Canada to strengthen and improve our infrastructure as that action will be essential in strengthening our economy, efficiency and reliability as a global leader in trade?

Is it not to the general advantage of Canada to support the government’s commitment to undertake meaningful consultations with Indigenous Peoples who are affected by projects? Is it not to the general advantage of Canada to protect the rich cultures of the First Nations and Acadian peoples?

I think a resounding “yes” to all of these questions is accurate, and all of them are relevant to the Chignecto Isthmus project and demonstrate why section 92.10(c) of our Constitution was seen as an important tool by the Fathers of Confederation in our Constitution by allowing Parliament to bestow federal leadership on projects Parliament considers to be for the general advantage of Canada. Colleagues, this is why the bill should be read a second time.

I respectfully ask each of you to support this bill so that we can again provide the other place — the elected chamber — an opportunity to debate, study and vote on this bill.

Thank you.