The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Sorry, Senator McPhedran, but there is a buzzing that can be heard every once in a while. Colleagues, could you make sure that your telephones are off? The microphones are picking this up and that’s what we’re hearing every once in a while, especially if it’s near a microphone. Thank you. Please continue, Senator McPhedran.

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Honourable senators, I rise to speak in support of Senator McPhedran’s amendment to Bill C-29, the national council for reconciliation act.

Colleagues, the term “time immemorial” has been used in many research articles, books and documents; it has been used by First Nations leaders, Elders, knowledge keepers and scholars. In our First Nations ways of being and knowing, it is a tribute to our connection to Creator and in our prayers, in Cree, we say kâkike, kâkike; forever and ever. It is a reminder of our sacred responsibility to the seven generations before us and that these ancestors also had their seven generations before them. It is also a reminder of our responsibility to the generations yet to come, including my grandson’s seven generations.

I now speak to the term “time immemorial” from a Cree perspective. In the book entitled Untuwe Pi Kin He Who We Are: Treaty Elders’ Teachings Volume I, Nisichawayasi Nehetho Nation and Kihche’otthasowewin — the Great Law of the Creator, Elder D’Arcy Linklater shares the great law of the creator from the Nisichawayasi Nehetho perspective. This is comprised of 12 laws of which the fourth states Aski Kanache Pumenikewin, which means that the conduct of a person must be in accordance with the sacred duty to protect N’tuskenan, the land, life, home and spiritual shelter entrusted to us by Kihche’manitou, for our children, michimahch’ohc. That is a different form of time immemorial.

Honourable senators, I spoke yesterday to Elder Claudette Commanda at the installation of the Indigenous Chiropractors Caucus. In her prayers, she said that her ancestors from Kitigan Zibi First Nation have been here since time immemorial and their lands remain unceded today. These are the lands we stand on. The First Nations knowledge of the term “time immemorial” and seven generations is uniquely situated on Turtle Island and keeping the land pristine.

I would like to draw your attention to the April 2019 report by the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal peoples entitled How Did We Get Here? A Concise, Unvarnished Account of the History of the Relationship between Indigenous Peoples and Canada. This report’s section entitled, “From Sovereign Nations to Wards of the State: The Story of First Nations’ Relationship with the Crown” has a subsection entitled “From Time Immemorial: The Life of First Nations Before the Arrival of Settlers,” where it states:

For thousands of years before the arrival of Europeans, First Nations lived on their traditional territories, depending on the lands and waters around them for sustenance. First Nations relationships to the land were a central part of their identity, as reflected in the diversity of cultures, laws, languages, ways of life and forms of governance that flourished across the area that is now Canada. . . .

The report continues:

When newcomers first arrived on the shores of Eastern Canada, they brought with them ideas about the land and the Indigenous inhabitants of the country, embodied in the concepts of terra nullius and the doctrine of discovery. . . . As explained by Elder Fred Kelly, the concept of terra nullius allowed ‘a discoverer ... [to] occupy the land by virtue of the fact that there is nobody there other than the animals’; this essentially allowed a discoverer to overlook the presence of Indigenous Peoples who were living on that land. A related concept, the doctrine of discovery ‘held that the discovery of such lands gave the discovering nation immediate sovereignty and all right and title to it.

In contrast, First Nations relied on the land for their sustenance — hunting, fishing or farming to feed their families and communities. For the Cree, land is ‘not about ownership and money.’ Instead, Cree People have a holistic understanding of land reflected in the concept of uski, which ‘includes all living things, such as the animals, plants, the trees, the fish, the rivers, the lakes and...the rocks...[and] also includes our concept of the sky world.’ The Cree view the land as integral to their culture, language and identity, and recognize that humans ‘are only a small part of our environment and...totally dependent on uski for their survival.’

The Government of Canada website, regarding the UNDRIP, or United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, Action Plan, in “Chapter 1: Shared priorities,” states:

As a preliminary note to this Chapter, Canada recognizes that the UN Declaration Act states that “measures to implement the Declaration in Canada must take into account the diversity of Indigenous peoples and, in particular, the diversity of the identities, cultures, languages, customs, practices, rights and legal traditions of First Nations, Inuit and the Métis and of their institutions and governance structures, their relationships to the land and Indigenous knowledge.”

Canada recognizes that while some priorities may be shared among First Nations, Inuit and Métis, adopting a distinctions-based approach requires that Canada’s relationships and engagement with First Nations, Inuit and Métis include different approaches or actions and result in different outcomes. . . .

Honourable senators, in legal terms, “time immemorial” originated in English common law, where it referred to a legal concept signifying a period way back in time where there is no recollection of record to prove a custom, right or claim.

In the U.K., a statute of the year 1275 said that the time before King Richard I’s reign or 1189 was declared to be time immemorial.

You will see the difference here between how the two define the word.

Colleagues, much of the remaining information I will share is taken from a book published by the Thompson Rivers University entitled Histories of Indigenous Peoples and Canada, which reads:

Canadians — including many Indigenous people — came to understand Indigenous histories as tangential, small, unimportant, and even a blind alley. This kind of thinking enabled Canadian authorities and citizens to regard Indigenous communities as being “without history,” as in, outside of history. And no one outside of history is going to fare very well . . . We — all of us — are those Canadians invited to engage in the Truth and Reconciliation process. Some truths are unknowable but what we can know, what truths we can distill from the past will be essential to the long hard climb toward reconciliation.

One common form of histories across cultures is that they legitimate a society’s claim to be where it is. . . . For millennia, Indigenous history was maintained by many means —

— including oral history.

Privileging the written word, European and Euro-Canadian historians overwhelmingly disregarded and sometimes disparaged the oral tradition. In New France, British North America, and Canada, the colonialist strategy was more subtle: it simply denied the existence of a historic past [of the First Nations]. Since material records by First Nations were dependent on an interpreter, these skills became less common as alien diseases, warfare and relocation interrupted the connection between the past and its heirs and hence the importance of oral history.

The book continues:

A systematic academic archaeological dig that stretched from the 1880s to the 1950s in Marpole Midden, a traditional village and burial site of enormous importance, pointed to occupation that stretched back at least fifteen hundred years and abandonment sometime in the mid-1700s. . . . The Ottawa Citizen newspaper in 1948 took the view that, whoever they were, the people whose remains constitute the Marpole Midden “. . . were not Indians certainly.” This tendency to deny a history before colonization survives in the practice among some scholars and commentators — still found in some quarters today — to refer to the period before the arrival of Europeans as “pre-historic.” This alleged absence . . . allowed newcomers to write their own history over top of Indigenous Histories . . . Europeans in the early contact period might transcribe Indigenous voices, but that is always filtered through the Europeans’ lens of what is important and how they understood the speaker. For example, they were more likely to journal about beaver pelts than . . . Cree moral debates and Ktunaxa understandings of the past.

Honourable senators, we must ensure that, as educated and civilized champions of the marginalized, we do not continue to place First Nations, Métis and Inuit histories into a monolith, and that we do not adopt legislation that, once again, ignores First Nations histories.

We have to ensure that we do the right thing and continue to accurately place First Nations within Canadian history. What remains problematic is the persistent use of the term “Indigenous”; it remains a form of assimilation.

Colleagues, when Bruce Trigger broadened historical approaches now described as ethno-history, he was able to transform understandings of the pre-, proto- and post-contact history of the Wendat.

At first, Western scholars were astonished that Indigenous knowledge included centuries-old elements. One example included:

The Heiltsuk, a.k.a. Bella Bella, people’s history and their insistence that their direct ancestors lived in their region for many millennia; recent archaeological evidence validates this claim back about fourteen thousand years.

“Vindication” may seem like the right word here, but it has been more like an education. Euro-Canadian society as a whole has been slow to grasp the strength and depth of Indigenous historical knowledge . . . Indigenous societies speak of knowledge keepers, not necessarily knowledge providers. Under no obligation to disclose their historical knowledge, Indigenous peoples nevertheless have the right to demand truthfulness in historical studies —

 — and in this case, truthfulness in legislation.

Honourable senators, changing the wording in the amendment — to reflect the truth — is not about denying the status and authority of the Métis. It was never about excluding.

My intention, and the intention of the amendment before us, is in regard to historical accuracy. Such an amendment is not signalling that Métis are of lesser importance. It is a historical fact that they came later in Canadian society because of the Métis shared biology between a First Nations woman and a European man.

Honourable senators, if we deny historical accuracy, then we are facilitating a harmful illusion of Canada’s history that will ultimately have deleterious impacts on First Nations rights, history and culture.

We must be resolute that we approach our work in giving sober second thought with diligence, and that includes ensuring the legislation we pass is fundamentally accurate.

In the book entitled We All Go Back to the Land: The Who, Why, and How of Land Acknowledgements, author Suzanne Keeptwo states:

Although the Land Acknowledgement is perceived as a relatively new phenomenon, it prompts mainstream Canadians to re-imagine an Inhabited world — a world prior to European settlement, that is unlike any other.

The Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That Bill C-29, as amended, be not now read a third time, but that it be further amended in the preamble, on page 1, by replacing lines 1 and 2 with the following:

“Whereas, since time immemorial, First Nations and Inuit peoples — and, post-contact, the Métis Nation — have thrived on and managed and governed”.

Thank you, meegwetch.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator McCallum, I’m sorry, your time for debate has expired.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, senators?

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: I rise today as the critic for Bill S-232, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy for the decriminalization of illegal substances, to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, which was introduced by the Honourable Gwen Boniface.

Honourable colleagues, Bill S-232 addresses an alarming and worrisome public health issue in our country. Drug use continues to kill many Canadians every day, and it impacts the health of thousands more. Some of the deadliest psychoactive substances are the notorious opioid analgesics, such as heroin and fentanyl.

According to the Canadian Alcohol and Drugs Survey, CADS, 4.4 million Canadians aged 15 and up reported having used opioid pain relievers in 2019, up 12% from 2017. Of those 4.4 million people, 269,000 reported problematic use of those drugs. According to the Government of Canada, there were 3,556 opioid-related deaths from January to June 2022, an average of 20 per day. Of those deaths, 76% were caused by fentanyl overdose.

Yes, the opioid crisis in Canada is raging, but we must not lose sight of the impact of other types of illegal drugs on many Canadians. According to CADS, in 2019, 1.1 million Canadians reported having consumed drugs in one of the following six categories: cocaine and crack, speed and methamphetamine, ecstasy, hallucinogens, heroin and salvia. In Quebec, those drugs killed seven times more users than fentanyl from January to April 2022.

Drug use not only kills people, it also has major impacts on the lives and health of drug users. In addition to their harmful mental and physical effects, drugs can insidiously compromise the user’s social, professional, intimate and financial life. For some, life spirals out of control and, sadly, they end up homeless. In 2019, over one million Canadians reported that drugs had negatively impacted their own lives.

Drug use also affects crime rates linked to family violence, theft and sexual assault. Honourable senators, drug use is a serious public health problem in Canada. It deserves more of our attention so that we can come up with constructive solutions to help people struggling with hard drugs and to effectively fight traffickers, who exploit human misery for profit and must be held accountable for the many lives lost.

In Canada, we may need to consider the sale of deadly drugs as nothing less than premeditated murder. Bill S-232 is a legislative response to the substance abuse problem that I just described; according to the critic, it has two objectives.

The first objective is to require the federal government to consult with the provinces and territories in order to present Parliament with a national strategy for the decriminalization of all drugs. The second objective is to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, to repeal the provisions that make possession of certain substances an offence. In other words, we are talking about decriminalization from a purely legal point of view.

In my view, a third objective is missing from Bill S-232. It should include a provision requiring the government to develop a concrete public health strategy that provides for detox before decriminalization.

While I applaud Senator Boniface’s useful work and the laudable objectives of her bill, I believe that the approach of outright decriminalization of drugs is premature and that it only partially addresses the problem.

In her speech at second reading, the senator indicated that the part of the bill seeking the total decriminalization of simple possession through the repeal of drug law sections would be done by an order-in-council issued by the Governor in Council, and according to their wishes, after the strategy is finalized so it can be put in place, if this bill passes.

When it comes to public health, it is rare to see anyone want to decriminalize anything while waiting to see what happens later. That is this government’s strategy. Decriminalization for the Trudeau government is not a public health strategy; it is dogma.

The senator’s approach is certainly prudent. However, I would like to state an important caveat on this point: Nothing in the bill states that this strategy, which is apparently complete and takes all challenges and perspectives into account, has to be implemented and analyzed first before the possibility of decriminalizing all drugs can be considered.

I think it is premature and even dangerous to consider passing a bill that proposes repealing sections of the law that criminalize simple drug possession at this stage of the process, when no complete strategy has been implemented, which might well take years to happen.

This is an important point, colleagues, because the bill we are studying does not set any legislative framework to decriminalize drugs. As a result, any possession of any illicit drug for personal use will no longer be considered criminal, regardless of the nature of the substance and the quantity in possession.

It is important to keep in mind that the purpose of the bill is to prevent drug overdose deaths, which are largely attributable to a bad supply that is extremely dangerous.

People use illicit drugs without knowing what is in them or where they came from. Often the user is not aware that those drugs may contain all sorts of harmful or deadly substances, such as fentanyl-type opioids or fentanyl analogues. That is especially true of crack.

I would like to share with you a sad incident that occurred last Friday in Laval to demonstrate how dangerous Bill S-232 is and how it could give drug users and the population in general a false sense of security.

I am talking about the murder of 61-year-old Mireille Martin. I want to take this opportunity to express my deepest condolences to her family and friends. Mireille Martin led a quiet life in an apartment building near her nephew, Jérôme Frigault, an ordinary young man in his 30s. According to his best friend, Jérôme regularly took methamphetamine tablets, commonly known as speed. Late last Thursday, the Laval police went to Ms. Martin’s address after receiving a complaint about excessive noise coming from her apartment. They left without taking any action. Two hours later, Mireille stumbled out of her apartment bleeding and died on the sidewalk after being stabbed to death by her nephew, who was in a psychotic state.

She was yet another victim, another case of femicide. To date, 2023 has been a record year in Quebec for this type of criminal death. Was this murder preventable? Possibly, given that the police who arrived at the scene two hours prior to the tragedy would have likely noticed the murderer’s agitated state. Why did they not remove him from the building or take him to hospital until he calmed down? The investigation will undoubtedly shed light on this horrible tragedy, or at least I hope it will.

This is a compelling example of why I fear decriminalizing all drugs, especially the deadliest ones. This bill gives drug users and politicians alike a false sense of security. What is more, it throws the door wide open to drug dealers.

It is all the more disturbing to note that the more lethal the drug, the smaller the quantity consumed. Therefore, most of the time, it is difficult to prove that the quantity of drugs seized was for the purpose of trafficking.

I would like to give you another example of how young people interpret the decriminalization of dangerous drugs as normalization. According to today’s edition of La Presse, the number of Quebec teens using illegal vapes to consume cannabis has exploded over the past four years, tripling since 2019. According to doctors, vaping cannabis increases the risk of addiction and mental illness.

According to a 2023 survey of approximately 24,000 adolescents, 12% said they use cannabis, compared to 15% in 2019. However, 66% said they vape cannabis, compared to 20% in 2019. Teens acquire cannabis vapes on the black market because it is illegal to sell them to anyone in Quebec, even adults.

Some of these devices are rechargeable, while others, called wax pens, are disposable. Some schools report students fainting after using them. The fact is, the vape juice these young people are consuming can contain as much as 90% THC, compared to the 30% maximum in products sold by the Société québécoise du cannabis.

This desired decriminalization, regardless of its potentially deadly risks, will undoubtedly lead to the same outcome as the legalization of cannabis, a drug with an illegal market that still controls 50% of sales today. This means that 50% of consumers buy cannabis of uncontrolled quality and origin.

This highly touted decriminalization will have little impact on death tolls or lethal drug trafficking, because, for the past eight years, the federal government has failed to implement any kind of strategy to guide consumers to public health services for detox support, like Portugal did when it introduced a detox strategy prior to decriminalization. Portugal’s strategy was a success. To do otherwise and believe we could achieve the same result is totally irresponsible.

Bill S-232 takes a somewhat simplistic and especially dangerous view of Canada’s illegal drug market. We have a duty to do better. Most importantly, we have an obligation to avoid making the situation worse by putting more lives in danger.

Bill S-232 in no way addresses the issue of minors. I would remind my colleagues that the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Criminal Code apply to anyone aged 12 or over, and that the Youth Criminal Justice Act does not contain a specific provision criminalizing drug possession. Without important clarifications, Bill S-232 will allow adolescents to possess any type of psychoactive substance in undefined quantities, without giving the police or judicial authorities any powers to prevent or dissuade teens from using them. This important aspect must not be overlooked, in order to avoid any unintended consequences to Senator Boniface’s desired objective.

Honourable senators, I will quote another passage from Bill S-232, but first I would like to point out that I’m opposed to the very principle of this bill.

In my opinion, the decriminalization of all drugs runs contrary to the balance that is needed between the problem of drug addiction and criminal justice objectives.

Now I’d like to talk about how the justice system has already adopted diversion measures for drug possession over the past 10 years.

Currently, our justice system is adapting more and more to the drug addiction issue. You will recall that Bill C-5, which we passed on November 17, 2022, provides diversion measures for simple drug possession in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Three new paragraphs that came into effect with the passage of Bill C-5 read as follows:

I would also remind senators that the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act already contain provisions granting discretionary power to the justice system to delay sentencing so that a person who has been found guilty of an offence can participate in a drug treatment court program. If that program is successful, the offender may receive a reduced sentence. What is more, if the offence is punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment, the court is not required to impose that minimum prison sentence.

I would like to quote subsection 10(4) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which states the following:

Finally, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada Deskbook already contains directives on how to deal with the opioid overdose issue. Here is one of them:

The Guideline seeks to avoid short durations of incarceration for violation of bail conditions by accused with a substance abuse disorder. This Guideline was created in order to address the epidemic of opioid overdoses through a targeted focus upon the risk of opioid-related overdoses by those with a substance use disorder.

The examples I have just cited demonstrate the pragmatism currently being shown by the Canadian justice system. The balance it has subtly attempted to strike over the years between the problem of drug addiction and the objectives of criminal justice shows a willingness to adapt to the addiction situations experienced by drug users. In my opinion, it is inappropriate to remove the important role played by the justice system and to treat the problem of drug addiction as a public health issue. In fact, this bill is almost a decade behind the Canadian justice system.

Honourable senators, possible exemptions under the current law already exist. These exemptions allow the Minister of Health to identify cases and conditions under which possession of narcotics for personal use can be acceptable in our society. These exemptions help ensure some degree of control, with an opportunity to set guidelines for drug possession, while recognizing specific needs and authorizing the tools and means to support harm reduction among certain populations, for example, by establishing safe injection sites.

These injection sites exist almost everywhere in major Canadian cities. People can show up to these sites and consume narcotics. These centres provide people with a safe place, with sterile consumption equipment, where health professionals are on hand to respond to emergency situations.

The exemption set out in section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act allows the staff to possess small amounts of controlled drugs in the course of their professional activities. Analyses to test the composition of a drug can also be performed before clients of these centres consume their drugs, thus preventing accidental deaths due to the presence of undesirable substances. Some users can also obtain medical prescriptions for the consumption of controlled substances under medical supervision, under this exemption to the law.

That is the approach taken by British Columbia, which requested and obtained an exemption to be able to experiment with the decriminalization of drugs at the provincial level. That exemption is valid until January 31, 2026.

British Columbia is being hard hit by fatal opioid overdoses. Thanks to this exemption, in British Columbia, any adult can possess 2.5 grams of four types of illegal drugs: opioids, cocaine, methamphetamine, and MDMA. Moreover, this exemption does not apply in certain locations, such as elementary and secondary schools, child care facilities, airports and aboard Canadian Coast Guard ships and helicopters.

Honourable senators, given that exemptions already exist in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and that the justice system is adapting each and every year to the problem of addictions, I do not consider it either useful or responsible to remove the role the justice system plays in addressing this problem.

I agree with Senator Boniface that we need a national strategy that provides better social services and more support to users, who should also be offered medical treatment.

Decriminalization could never be the ultimate solution to the drug addiction problem for the reasons I have already outlined.

In my analysis, Bill S-232 in its current form is a far too simple a response to a very complex problematic situation.

Most importantly, it does not include plans for a real public health strategy to combat drug addiction. This bill risks creating even bigger problems if a comprehensive strategy is not developed before we think about decriminalizing drugs.

Decriminalization should only happen if it is truly a desirable solution, after comprehensive studies and analyses have been conducted. That is not yet the case.

Let’s hope we will have the opportunity to address these issues in committee soon. Thank you very much.

[English]

Hon. Gwen Boniface: Would Senator Boisvenu take a question?

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker: Would you take a question, Senator Boisvenu?

The Hon. the Speaker: Would you take a supplementary question, Senator Boisvenu?

Hon. Andrew Cardozo: Honourable senators, this item is adjourned in the name of Senator Martin. I ask for leave of the Senate that, following my intervention, the balance of her time to speak to this item be reserved.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted?

An Hon. Senator: Leo Housakos.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

[English]

Hon. Michael L. MacDonald: Honourable senators, I am pleased to join the discussion today on Bill S-273, Chignecto Isthmus Dykeland System act, tabled by our Maritime colleague Senator Quinn. I rise as the critic of this legislation.

For those less familiar with topographical terminology, an isthmus is a narrow strip of land separating two expansive bodies of water and connecting two larger landmasses. As Senator Cotter accurately pointed out in his speech, “isthmus” certainly qualifies as one of the most difficult words to pronounce in the English language, at least for those of us who speak English as our first language. It is no wonder Maritimers have always euphemistically referred to the general area as the Tantramar Marshes. It’s so much easier to pronounce.

There are four distinct and significant isthmus formations in Canada: the Isthmus of Avalon, connecting the Avalon Peninsula with the main portion of the island of Newfoundland; the Sechelt Isthmus, on B.C.’s Sunshine Coast; the Niagara Isthmus, separating Lakes Erie and Ontario; and, in this case, the Isthmus of Chignecto. The Chignecto Isthmus separates the Northumberland Strait in the Gulf of St. Lawrence from the Bay of Fundy to the southwest, and it connects the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

But this 13-mile-wide strip of land connecting Nova Scotia to the North American continent exists in unique circumstances. As the only land link between Nova Scotia and the mainland of Canada, it serves a vital role to industry and our economy, with over $35 billion in trade transiting the corridor annually, as well as 15,000 vehicles daily and millions of people annually.

All roads and rail service, fibre optic telecommunications and pipelines depend on this corridor. It should also be remembered that this highway access is almost as important to Newfoundland as it is to Nova Scotia. What makes the area of immediate structural concern, however, is that it sits on land only slightly above sea level, and that land, while very fertile, is also very flat. This vulnerability presents a particular risk that must be mitigated, especially with the Bay of Fundy subjecting the area to the highest and strongest tides in the world.

I’ve heard repeated references to climate change, but I remind honourable senators that the rising nature of the Atlantic Ocean has been around long before the term “climate change” was coined, and the practical necessity of diking this land and protecting this unique coastline has been evident for well over three centuries.

Senator Quinn provided this chamber with a useful overview of the history of the dike land systems established by the Acadians beginning in the late 17th century. They built a series of earthen dikes to protect agricultural lands from the ever-active tides of the Bay of Fundy. Many of these earthen dikes remain, although they are only a couple of feet high for the most part.

When the New England planters arrived to farm the vacated land beginning in 1759, they revived and expanded the existing agricultural dike lands over the ensuing decades, building bigger dikes, culminating in the building of the Wellington dike between 1817 and 1825, which protects over 3,000 acres of prime farmland and is over 50 feet high and 120 feet at the base.

In 1948, after persistent pressure from Maritimers who recognized that the dike lands required significant enhancements, Parliament passed the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, which obligated the federal government to pay 100% for the construction and reconstruction of dikes and dams in the area. Now, 75 years later, these are the same dikes that need to be replaced, upgraded or reinforced at an estimated cost of $650 million. I think all my Maritime colleagues would agree that we have been experiencing severe weather events in our region at an alarming frequency — certainly more frequently than I can remember in my lifetime. As you recall, this summer Nova Scotia experienced record-shattering rainfall during a 24-hour period in July with some areas receiving nearly 10 inches of rain. That’s 250 millimetres. This is rainfall of historic proportions.

Atlantic Canadians have also been experiencing increased threats from hurricanes in recent years. With ocean surface temperatures rising along the eastern seaboard, scientists have noted the Atlantic coast is becoming a breeding ground for tropical storms and hurricanes sweeping north. They are increasing in intensity and they are increasing in frequency, bringing with them heavy wind, rain, dangerous ocean swells and leaving a trail of destruction behind for Atlantic Canadians.

Colleagues, when you add the severity and frequency of these weather events to the reality of rising sea levels, it’s understandable that the governments of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and the residents have increased anxieties about the adequacy of the dike system at Chignecto.

What would happen if there was a failure of the dated infrastructure? What if, suddenly, that narrow piece of land — vital for trade, a utility corridor for this country and a lifeline for Nova Scotia and Newfoundland — became compromised and impassable? We can only imagine the result would be devastating for our national economy, our industries as well as the people and businesses of Nova Scotia and Atlantic Canada.

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. This is not only unfair, it is unjust and it is unequal. What Senator Quinn has proposed with this bill is to declare the dike land systems 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 which it deems to be in the national interest.

Senator Quinn rightly points out that 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. And what Senator Quinn is proposing is not unprecedented.

For years, the American-Canadian border at Windsor and Detroit has served as Canada’s single business and commercial land corridor between our two countries, but the privately and American-owned Ambassador Bridge was the sole access for road traffic, and it could often be congested to the detriment of both commerce and the movement of people.

In 2012, the Harper government resolved to fix the problem with the decision to build the Gordie Howe International Bridge, which will open in 2025. It wasn’t required to adopt any declaration to build the bridge as all international crossings are the responsibility of the federal government and the demand for a new bridge had been around for a long time. The $4-billion structure would be paid for through its tolls, a user-pay approach that I have always supported in principle where and when it makes sense.

Then in 2014, the Harper government enacted the New Bridge for the St. Lawrence Act, in which it declared the Champlain Bridge in Montreal and related works to be for the general advantage of Canada. The very busy original Champlain Bridge was found to be structurally unsound, but the Government of Quebec and the City of Montreal said they couldn’t afford to pay for the new bridge. However, unlike the Gordie Howe International Bridge, this is unquestionably a provincial matter. Municipalities are creatures of the provinces, and municipal bridges are simply not the responsibility of the federal authority in this country. But the need was urgent, hence the decision of the Harper government to assist in the construction of the new Champlain Bridge.

However, the federal government also declared that its commitment came with the understanding that the bridge would be tolled and that the federal taxpayer would be reimbursed for the upfront costs of the new Champlain Bridge. I agree wholeheartedly with that economically responsible approach, which solves an immediate problem but also respects divisions of power under the Constitution.

After the election of the Trudeau government, they dropped the reasonable and financially responsible decision to toll the new bridge. 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, I think the Champlain Bridge is of vital importance to our economy and that it was a sound initiative by the federal government to replace the aging original structure. However, I also believe the Trudeau government should have done the fair, equitable, honourable and financially responsible thing and kept the tolls on the bridge. Since they established this precedent, all regions, provinces and Canadians should be treated equally in matters of this nature.

For reference, compare the issue of management regarding the new Champlain Bridge to that applied towards the Confederation Bridge connecting Prince Edward Island to the mainland. I remember that project very well. The late Stewart McInnes was the then-minister of public works, and I was the executive assistant when the decision was made to build the Confederation Bridge. The government had a foundational obligation going back to 1873 to provide transportation infrastructure to Prince Edward Island, which traditionally meant a ferry service.

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 actually the responsibility of the federal authority? These are reasonable questions.

Canadians today are finally realizing that financial responsibility and the Trudeau government repel each other like the same poles of a magnet, and their latest scheme regarding selective tax exemptions for home heating illustrates that fair and equal treatment of Canadians appears to be something beyond their capacity.

I would be remiss if I did not note that the Nova Scotia capital has two bridges spanning Halifax Harbour, funded by the provincial and municipal governments, paid for and maintained by the tolls charged to those who use the bridges — no federal money for these bridges and no removal of our tolls. I don’t begrudge any municipality, any province or anyone in this country anything if it makes life a little better for all concerned, but it’s time we return to a government that didn’t treat Canadians differently in different parts of the country. Canadians deserve better than this.

Given that the $4.2-billion Champlain Bridge serves as a vital economic corridor with approximately $20 billion worth of goods crossing from the island of Montreal to the south shore of the St. Lawrence, I share the view that this is a justifiable federal investment, but the precedent has been set. In the interests of regional fairness, 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 of the cost of the Champlain Bridge. The federal government should step up and do its job and stop prevaricating.

It’s not uncommon for Maritimers to be 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.

I have no doubt that the protection of this vital corridor is in the national interest, and I commend Senator Quinn for taking the initiative with this bill and supporting its advancement. So let’s get it to committee so we can ask the important questions. Let’s ask about the vulnerability of the dike system to weather events and the consequences of this land link being washed out.

Let’s ask how it would affect interprovincial trade and the industries that rely on the railway and highway or how international trade would be affected if the Port of Halifax could not import and export as usual. Let’s ask how Newfoundland would handle being cut off from its major supply line.

Senator Cormier indicated in his speech that he has some concerns about the federal use of the declaratory power of the federal government, and quoted our esteemed former colleague André Pratte as a source for his uncertainty. I don’t recall hearing these reservations being expressed when it was announced that the federal taxpayers would pay for the new Champlain Bridge, so perhaps his views have been modified in the meantime. However, I submit these reservations are esoteric concerns, and the real issue now is one of equal treatment for regions of this country, something which should be top of mind for every senator.

Colleagues, let’s send this bill as soon as possible to committee for further study. Canada has an isthmus to protect and preserve. Thank you.

Hon. Jim Quinn: Would the senator take a question?

An Hon. Senator: No.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted?