Senator Gold: Yes.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(At 6:22 p.m., the Senate was continued until tomorrow at 2 p.m.)

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question.

I will simply say that my office has made inquiries on this subject and in this direction, and I am awaiting further response. I will advise you and the chamber as soon as I get the response. My office has been dealing with this proactively. I don’t have the answer for you quite yet.

Hon. Flordeliz (Gigi) Osler: Honourable senators, I would like to begin by recognizing that we are gathered on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people, who have lived on this land since time immemorial.

I rise today to support the principle of Bill C-64.

[English]

My speech today will have three parts: first, a short background on the Canada Health Act and how that framework relates to the current gap of national pharmacare in Canada; then an outline of how access to contraception improves health; and finally, I will touch on a few areas of Bill C-64 where I believe further scrutiny is required.

To start, it is important to understand the Canada Health Act in relation to this piece of legislation. Bill C-64 states that the minister is to consider the Canada Health Act along with the principles of accessibility, affordability, appropriate use and universal coverage when collaborating with provinces, territories, Indigenous peoples and other partners and stakeholders toward national universal pharmacare.

Consideration of a national prescription drug plan is not new. In 1961, the Royal Commission on Health Services, also known as the Hall commission, recommended a national health policy and a comprehensive health care program, thus laying the foundation for the Canada Health Act. One recommendation from the Hall commission was that prescription drugs be included as a benefit of the proposed health system.

Fast-forward to 1984 and the enactment of the Canada Health Act, which established the funding framework from the federal government to the provinces and territories, as well as the principle of single-payer health care. It also set out the criteria and conditions that the provinces and territories must fulfill to receive their full federal cash contribution available under the Canada Health Transfer. Keep that phrase in mind — “criteria and conditions” — as I will elaborate later.

Under the Canada Health Act, insured health services include medically necessary hospital, physician and certain surgical-dental services, but not prescription drugs, hence the gap that Bill C-64 is attempting to fill. Some of you are likely familiar with the 2019 report of the Advisory Council on the Implementation of National Pharmacare, better known as the Hoskins report. It emphasizes that:

We are the only country in the world with universal health care that does not provide universal coverage for prescription drugs.

While the latter half of that statement is true in that Canada does not have universal coverage for prescription drugs, it is important to note that Canada does not have a universal health care system.

And this is from the Government of Canada website:

Canada does not have a single national health insurance plan. Rather, the 13 provinces and territories have their own health insurance plans, which share certain common features and basic standards of coverage defined by the Canada Health Act . . . .

Furthermore, alongside the 13 provincial and territorial health insurance plans, the federal government provides funding and some direct health care services to certain population groups, including First Nations people living on reserves, Inuit, serving members of the Canadian Forces, eligible veterans, inmates in federal penitentiaries and some groups of refugee claimants. Again, keep those groups in mind.

Now, moving on to the second part of my speech on how access to contraception improves health. Contraception saves the lives of women and babies by reducing both maternal mortality and infant mortality.

To start, contraceptive use reduces the number of abortions, especially those that are unsafe and lead to maternal deaths. Nearly one quarter of Canadians are of reproductive age, and nearly half of all pregnancies in Canada are unintended. Seventy per cent of people seeking abortions report no insurance coverage for contraception.

Although many Canadians have some form of insurance coverage, incomplete coverage impacts access. Requiring insurance companies to cover a 12-month supply of a contraceptive prescription has been associated with a 30% reduction of unintended pregnancies.

Additionally, data from the United States shows that even small out-of-pocket costs reduce the use of contraceptive services and medication, especially among low-income and uninsured women.

Family planning has contributed to substantial declines in global maternal and infant mortality. The ability to plan and time pregnancies provides health benefits for both mothers and babies.

Several studies show that both maternal and infant mortality risks increase with short birth intervals. For instance, beginning a pregnancy within six months of a live birth is associated with an increased risk of premature birth and low birth weight for the newborn.

Family planning reduces maternal mortality by reducing parity — that means the number of births — which then decreases the number of times a woman faces the morbidity and mortality risks associated with childbirth.

Finally, a few words on the economic benefits of contraception. A report by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research lists the economic effects of contraceptive access. The report is based on research that identifies causal impacts on educational attainment, labour force participation, career outcomes, earnings, poverty and effects on the next generation.

In the 1960s, expanded contraceptive access for women led to increased women’s college enrollment by an estimated 12 to 20%. Access to the birth control pill allowed women to delay childbirth, boosting their investment in education and careers.

Contraceptive access accounted for 15% of the increases in women’s labour force participation and nearly one third of the rise in women entering professional fields like medicine and law from 1970 to 1990.

Now, moving on to the third part of my speech, allow me to highlight two reasons why I look forward to studying this bill in committee.

First, the projected cost and lack of a compliance and enforcement mechanism in Bill C-64 should undergo further scrutiny. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated that the first phase of national universal pharmacare will increase federal spending by $1.9 billion over five years. Yet, despite the almost $2 billion increase in federal spending, I find accountability lacking in Bill C-64 as it does not contain language on compliance and enforcement.

Recall earlier how the Canada Health Act sets out the criteria and conditions that the provinces and territories must fulfill to receive their full Canada Health Transfer. The Canada Health Act lists five criteria of public administration: comprehensiveness, universality, portability, accessibility and two conditions on information and recognition.

If the federal minister of health is of the opinion that a province or territory’s health care insurance plan does not meet one of the five criteria or does not meet the two conditions, the minister may refer the matter to the Governor-in-Council. If the Governor-in-Council agrees, they may direct that any cash contribution to that province or territory for a fiscal year be reduced or direct that the whole of any cash contribution to that province or territory for a fiscal year be withheld.

In short, if a province or territory does not fulfill the Canada Health Act’s criteria or conditions, the federal government may reduce or withhold their Canada Health Transfer.

Furthermore, the Canada Health Act provides that a provincial or territorial health care insurance plan must not permit extra billing or user charges by health facilities or health care practitioners. Amounts charged to patients in the form of either extra billing or user charges must be deducted from the cash contribution made under the Canada Health Transfer.

Bill C-64 aims to provide universal, single-payer, first-dollar coverage. Unlike the Canada Health Act, however, Bill C-64 does not contain language on compliance and enforcement.

I question how the provinces and territories will be held accountable. What recourse does the federal government have if a province or territory fails to uphold the principles set out in clause 4 of the bill? What will happen if patients continue to have upfront, out-of-pocket expenses like an insurance co-pay or a pharmacy dispensing fee?

One would assume that co-pays and dispensing fees will be included in the discussions held between the federal minister of health and provinces, territories, Indigenous peoples and other partners and stakeholders.

But as parliamentarians, we cannot make assumptions when it comes to passing legislation. This leads to the second reason I look forward to the committee study on this legislation — to gain more information from the minister and government officials on the future bilateral discussions.

As mentioned earlier, the federal government provides funding and some direct health care services to certain populations including First Nations people living on reserves, Inuit, serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces, eligible veterans, inmates in federal penitentiaries and some groups of refugee claimants.

Clause 5 of Bill C-64 outlines the funding commitment in which the Government of Canada commits to maintaining long-term funding for the provinces, territories and Indigenous peoples, with funding for the provinces and territories provided primarily through agreements with their respective governments. But other than Indigenous peoples, Bill C-64 does not detail a commitment to long-term funding for the other federal populations. Perhaps these groups are the “other partners and stakeholders” referred to in clause 4, but coverage for federally funded populations should be further explored in committee.

To conclude, I support improving health through better access to affordable medications. But with Bill C-64 in its current form, questions remain. How will provinces and territories be held accountable for the federal funds transferred to them? What will the compliance and enforcement mechanisms be, especially if they are not entrenched in legislation? Will all federal populations have a commitment from the Government of Canada to improve access and affordability of prescription drugs and related products?

Honourable colleagues, I hope you join me in supporting Bill C-64.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

Leave having been given to proceed to Other Business, Inquiries, Order No. 22:

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Cardozo, calling the attention of the Senate to the future of the CBC/Radio-Canada.

Hon. Fabian Manning: Would Senator Moodie take a question?

I want to thank both Senator Osler and Senator Moodie for their speeches. I won’t pretend for a moment to have the experience that both of you have in health care, but I am always concerned about the delivery of health care and the announcement of plans, the announcement of programs. And I’ll talk about the dental program for one moment. I have had a half dozen calls to my office in the last month from seniors who cannot participate in the program for lack of insurance or even from some who have some insurance, but that it is not covered by their insurance, and now we’re talking about a pharmacare program.

I want to know if you feel confident that Bill C-64 will give to vulnerable Canadians — seniors in many cases — the opportunity to participate in the pharmacare program because it sounds wonderful at the outset sometimes, but the reality of what happens down the line is concerning for me. I just want to know what you think about that. Thanks.

The Hon. the Speaker: Thank you. The time for debate has expired.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Bellemare, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dalphond, for the third reading of Bill S-244, An Act to amend the Department of Employment and Social Development Act and the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Council), as amended.

Hon. Jim Quinn moved third reading of Bill S-273, An Act to declare the Chignecto Isthmus Dykeland System and related works to be for the general advantage of Canada, as amended.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to begin third reading of Bill S-273, An Act to declare the Chignecto Isthmus Dykeland System and related works to be for the general advantage of Canada.

First, I want to thank the many witnesses and my colleagues on the Transport and Communications Committee. Their input and questions led to amendments that I proposed and that our committee chair reported upon last week. I believe that those amendments are responsive to that input and make the bill that much stronger.

However, before I start to discuss the riveting aspects of the Constitution or to provide comments on Senator Cotter’s statement at second reading that the Chignecto Isthmus is one of the hardest words in the English language to pronounce — and, I will also add, to spell — I want to tell you a story about what this bill really is and what it isn’t.

This bill is not directly about money. The Constitution limits our ability as senators in introducing money bills. This bill is really about fairness and understanding. It is about representing a regional issue that might not otherwise make its way into our parliamentary system. It is about doing our jobs as each of us represents a region of Canada, with the vast majority of us doing so as independent senators — something the Fathers of Confederation might be surprised by as our institution continues down the path of modernization.

These are simple concepts that I cannot believe I have the privilege of standing before you today to highlight, as they are of fundamental importance.

Colleagues, to be frank with you, I am humbled by the fact that I stand before you in the Senate of Canada. Admittedly, if it were not for a twist of fate resulting from an accident while serving aboard a Canadian Coast Guard vessel as a 21-year-old fellow, I might not be here — please hold your applause. The accident changed everything for me. It presented that fork-in-the-road scenario, except the fork had a sign that pointed in a direction I knew would eventually be followed, steering me away from my life’s goal of becoming a harbour pilot in my hometown of Saint John, New Brunswick, just like my dad, uncle and generations before me. My life’s plan — probably like most of my honourable colleagues with whom I have the pleasure of serving today — would be led to believe that I am not supposed to be here.

I grew up in an impoverished area of Saint John, on the shores of our port. I know what it means to come from not only a region that has fewer opportunities but from a family that should have had limited opportunities in life. My siblings and I were fortunate to have parents who steered us in directions that included hard work, decency, compassion and, notably, education. Our mother had a firm hand on the tiller of our lives’ journeys, ensuring as best as she could that we steered clear from trouble. Believe me, in my case, I look back and recognize she had to have both her hands on the tiller of my life.

All of us worked hard because we understood that we wanted to be the best we could be, and higher education required the resources to dare dream of going to the University of New Brunswick, St. Francis Xavier University, Dalhousie University or nursing school. I have five sisters and a brother — three doctors and three nurses — and then there was me.

I started my post-secondary education in Dalhousie’s pre-med stream, and, while finishing that path, I knew I was destined to go out to the sea. What I mean by that is not my former role as the CEO of Port Saint John, but, simply, I was destined to be a sailor, sailing ships out of Saint John to other ports of call in Atlantic Canada, the western hemisphere and, indeed, around the world.

I share this story with you because, while not unique for families across this great nation, it does symbolize — for me — that we Maritimers have to work harder to be seen and heard.

The strategic location of the Chignecto Isthmus is well known to sailors. In fact, one of the first debates in this very chamber in 1867 was about the creation of a canal between the Bay of Fundy and the Northumberland Strait to reduce shipping times. As New Brunswick Senator Frank Black said in 1929, the Chignecto canal project was the oldest canal project in North America. The first road ever constructed in North America was in this area. As far back as 1686, a canal across the Chignecto Isthmus was recommended by the French government.

In 1868, the Government of Canada inquired about building a canal along the isthmus, and it recommended that the canal was of vital importance to the development of intercolonial trade in the country. In 1870, the federal commission stated, “Inseparably connected with the growth of intercolonial trade is the construction of the Baie Verte Canal.”

Today, it is known as the Chignecto canal.

The federal commission continued:

The advantages that must accrue, not merely to the Dominion as a whole, but to the commerce of the Maritime Provinces, are so clearly pointed out by the Boards of Trade of all the leading cities of Canada. Such a canal would reduce the shipping route between Montreal and Saint John by 500 miles. Clearly the area is of national importance.

We often think of the Intercolonial Railway as being the linchpin of why the Maritime provinces joined Confederation. It is the same rail that goes through the Chignecto Isthmus today, which is protected by a series of dikes and aboiteaux constructed by the Acadians in the 1600s to control the world’s highest tides, create farmland and protect people and communities.

However, during the Confederation debates at the Quebec Conference in 1864, the delegates of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia stressed the importance of this canal being built as a condition of Confederation. Unfortunately, senators, due to financial depression and the waning influence of the Maritimes, this canal was not built. Parliament did pass a project to create a Chignecto ship railway to transport ships across the isthmus, and they used the declaratory power. Sadly, that, too, was never completed.

Colleagues, as a sailor in my youth, I can attest to why the Chignecto Isthmus is of national importance, and, had a canal been built, it would have transformed the economy of the Maritimes. Instead, we have the Intercolonial Railway — in its present form, it’s the main CN line — as well as the Trans-Canada Highway linking Canada to Nova Scotia and the Port of Halifax through New Brunswick.

Senators, a freak accident resulted in my taking that fork I mentioned earlier, and, to paraphrase Stan Rogers, I ended up in a situation where “I’ll go to sea no more.” It meant that I was now fated for desk jobs, and I joined the offices of the Canadian Coast Guard in Ottawa. There, I first became acquainted with a situation that any one of my colleagues from Atlantic Canada can relate to: Does Ottawa truly understand Eastern Canada?

Now consigned to desk jobs, this basic question of understanding stuck with me. It led to me coming to Ottawa with the goal of rising through the ranks of the public service, but in a way where I never forgot my roots, and where I could help my colleagues from Ottawa understand the Maritimes and ensure that decisions are made in a fair and equitable way.

Colleagues, why are the simple ideas of fairness and understanding so hard to implement such that we — Maritimers and Newfoundlanders — have to raise our voices in order to be heard? It seems that at almost every opportunity, the federal government turns a blind eye to the struggles of the East, or presents mountains to climb in the hope that we will be heard and supported.

I have a basic premise where, since Confederation, the influence of the Maritimes has been in decline from the most important thing that motivates a government: seats in the House of Commons. More seats means that a region’s concerns are more easily understood, and, with that, it creates an implicit understanding of fairness for the region.

Senators, the Maritimes is the only region in Canada that has significantly lost seats since Confederation. In 1867, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick had 19 and 15 seats respectively. By 1872, this grew to 21 and 16 seats before decreasing to the 11 and 10 seats we have today.

Prince Edward Island, by contrast, initially declined joining Confederation in part due to concerns of its influence being impacted by the larger provinces. The 1873 terms of union between the Dominion of Canada and Prince Edward Island included the promise of two members of Parliament for the three counties of the province. What this means, senators, is that in 1873, P.E.I. had six members of Parliament. However, by 1913, the Island was reduced to three MPs.

Again, I stress that the Maritimes went from 43 seats in 1873 to 25 MPs today.

This inequity resulted in an amendment to the Constitution known as the Senate floor rule, where no province can have fewer MPs than senators, which is why Prince Edward Island has 4 MPs and New Brunswick only has 10 MPs today.

Colleagues, recall the words “fairness and understanding.” At the time of the proposal to introduce the Senate floor rule, both Prime Minister Sir Robert Borden and opposition leader Sir Wilfrid Laurier called it a fair compromise. Yet, history isn’t that simple, colleagues. It was the view of my colleagues from Prince Edward Island that the province was entitled to six seats. Senator Benjamin Prowse from Prince Edward Island expressed this frustration of declining influence on debate of the senatorial floor clause.

He said:

I speak for the Government of Prince Edward Island and the people that I represent when I say that we do not now accept and will not accept in this settlement our claim for representation in Prince Edward Island. Our forefathers, the Fathers of Confederation, fought for six long years on the one contention that we should have six representatives, until the Dominion of Canada came to the little island with the white flag and conceded those six members. The Government today have acknowledged our claim by allowing us four, and we are only entitled to three. We do not come up here as serfs from the little province on the plea of poverty or being a small province. We come here as men to men, equal to any other part of the Dominion of Canada claiming our just rights. We are not asking for any favours; we do not want any favours, but we do demand our rights that were conceded to us at the time of Confederation.

Senators, the current seats in the Maritimes represent a “fair compromise.” However, there is a second clause in the allocation of seats in the House of Commons that is decidedly unfair. The grandfather clause originally stated that no province could have fewer seats than it had in 1986. This was subsequently changed to each province having no fewer seats than in 2019. Thus, other provinces now cannot lose seats, meaning that they will not be in the same position as the Maritimes of having declining influence, and they simply have more voices at the table.

Would the “fair compromise” have been truly fair if Maritimers had known that, in the future, other regions would not have their seats reduced?

Senators, I raise this issue of electoral demographics to indicate that the Maritimes must continually and loudly advocate for things that are taken for granted in other provinces. As I said, as individuals and as a region, we simply have to work harder to be heard.

I will outline the broad support this bill has from Atlantic Canada, which also underscores the importance of this Senate public bill being passed in this chamber so that it can be sent to the elected chamber for their consideration.

This takes me to the heart of Bill S-273. Senator Clement and Senator Dasko said it best in committee: This bill and the related court reference are representative of a breakdown and failure of negotiations between the Province of New Brunswick, the Province of Nova Scotia and the Government of Canada. This bill does several different things — including invoking the declaratory power — but it is also a political means that we have to indicate to the members of the House of Commons and the government that there needs to be a change from the status quo, and this could help restart negotiations.

Colleagues, one of the things that was taken away from our deliberations in committee — and became public — was the insistence by my premier in New Brunswick that he wanted 100% of this project to be paid for. What we’re doing today by looking at this declaratory power does not require the government to pay 100%. It requires them to do nothing, if they choose. Today, the deal is that there are 50-cent dollars that are at the limit of the Treasury Board’s authority for the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund.

I’m talking about determining how we restart negotiations and have fairness, as we have seen through the recent billion-dollar funding announcement for the Quebec Bridge, which is presently under federal jurisdiction via the declaratory power. This brings to mind that Canada is committing to paying 60% of the costs — not 50% — with CN Railway providing 15% and the Province of Quebec paying the remaining 25%. There is room for negotiations to continue. The fact that the federal government is asking private sector users of the Quebec Bridge to contribute shows that there can be creative means to limit the expenditures of both levels of government while ensuring those private entities that have a direct stake in the use of a critical transportation corridor pay as well. However, that’s not for me to negotiate, but for the federal government to consider should the declaratory power be invoked by Parliament.

The declaratory power places the Chignecto Isthmus Dykeland System under federal jurisdiction, which means that it is different from a programming status than other pieces of critical infrastructure. It would be no different than the Gordie Howe Bridge or the Champlain Bridge. My point is that the declaratory power shows that the scale of the $650-million Chignecto Isthmus Dykeland System project does not fit the scope of the federal Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund, where large-scale projects start at $20 million and projects like the isthmus can only be negotiated, as I said, at 50-cent dollars because that is the Treasury Board’s authority under that program for projects such as the isthmus.

Again, per the 1886 example of the use of the declaratory power to build dikes in Montreal, the use of the declaratory power does not compel the Government of Canada to fund a project. However, it is useful as a starting point for negotiations.

Colleagues, some may have concerns as to whether the declaratory power is the appropriate tool in this circumstance. It absolutely is.

I reject the view that the dikeland system can be considered exclusively one continuous work that extends beyond a single province. Maritimers like to help each other, and the fact that New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are cooperating in developing an integrated series of dikes to protect the entire area is a testament to interprovincial cooperation. However, there is no legal obligation for the Province of New Brunswick, for example, to do so. They could easily repair the dikes on the New Brunswick side of the interprovincial boundary on the Musquash River — which divides Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, in the way of the isthmus — and lead Nova Scotia to flood. The provinces cooperate because they understand the importance of not being so provincial in perspective, and that this project is in the national interest given the critical nature of the transportation and communications infrastructure and the essential elements of protecting unique farmlands and ecosystems. Just as importantly, it is the significant heritage and cultural area for our Mi’kmaq citizens as well as Acadians.

Also, the declaratory power applies to the Gordie Howe Bridge, which connects to Michigan and is therefore not wholly within the province of Ontario. This does not invalidate its use.

Yes, honourable senators, there is a reference before the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal seeking to answer this question: Is the infrastructure which protects the interprovincial transportation, trade and communication links across the Chignecto Isthmus within the exclusive legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada? That is seeking a judicial determination of the scope of 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867. However, that does not preclude us as parliamentarians from taking action using the declaratory power under 92(10)(c).

The courts and witnesses in committee are quite clear that it is for Parliament alone to determine whether a work is for the general advantage of Canada. I would add that if this bill quickly becomes law, then there is no need for a determination by the courts over 92(10)(a). This means that Bill S-273 is a tailor-made solution for the Chignecto Isthmus that will not have unintended jurisdictional impacts that a reference case could. It provides a politically negotiated settlement rather than a judicially imposed determination.

Colleagues, if you are uncomfortable with the use of the declaratory power in general, or even in these specific circumstances, I want you to take comfort in the following: The bill has more support on the East Coast today than Confederation had at the time of Confederation. I do not say this lightly.

The four governments of Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador support the bill because of the criticality of protecting the trade route for vital supplies, as well as ensuring access to health care facilities such as the IWK Children’s Hospital and other specialty medical services in Halifax. Both the Nova Scotia and New Brunswick legislative assemblies passed all-party resolutions supporting this bill.

The towns in the isthmus directly impacted by rising sea levels due to climate change, Tantramar and Amherst, also support the bill. The Union of the Municipalities of New Brunswick supports the bill out of a concern — which Senator Robinson raised in committee — that if the dikelands are paid for under the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund, then there will be no additional money left for infrastructure projects in Atlantic Canada as our allocation will be spent.

The Société de l’Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick, the Fédération acadienne de la Nouvelle-Écosse and the Société Nationale de l’Acadie support this bill as well because:

. . . it provides a political signal that protecting Acadian cultural and heritage sites is in the national interest, where Senators are undertaking their constitutional role in representing regions and protecting minority language rights . . .

Senator Cormier will speak about this aspect in more detail later today.

Most importantly, colleagues, the First Nations support Bill S-273. I am often asked this question: What is the practical effect of Bill S-273? It uses the declaratory power and also allows for the Government of Canada to enter into contracts to help build, maintain or operate the dikeland system.

Chief of Fort Folly First Nation Rebecca Knockwood said the following in committee about why her community supports Bill S-273:

Considering the significance of this area for the Mi’kmaq, considering that the federal government’s consultation and impact assessment process is more thorough and considering that we cannot afford to wait for the jurisdictional battle to be settled, the Mi’kmaq chiefs in New Brunswick would ask you to support the bill put forward by Senator Quinn. The land should be transferred to federal jurisdiction until this project has been completed. . . .

If the declaratory power is used, it means that the federal government would take the lead in respecting the duty to consult with the affected Mi’kmaq communities and leadership. The declaratory power is essential to this commitment toward reconciliation. Chief Knockwood is correct that the federal government would provide a more through consultation process. Further, because the impacts will occur on both sides of the interprovincial boundary, the federal government is best positioned to ensure proper coordination.

Amendments were made in committee at the request of Nova Scotia organizations representing the Mi’kmaq to address any concerns they had by ensuring that there is a non-derogation clause that respects section 35 of our Constitution concerning Aboriginal treaty rights, using limiting language to reduce the scope of emergency powers during construction and ensure that the Mi’kmaq can participate in the contracting process. Senator Prosper will be moving an amendment to the preamble to further reflect this commitment toward reconciliation.

Honourable senators, Atlantic Canada is speaking with one voice, asking both to be treated fairly and for you to understand that the Chignecto Isthmus is to the general advantage of Canada. We often look at the Senate as a place of sober second thought in our role as a revising chamber. However, the constitutionally entrenched role of the Senate to represent regional interests is even more important. The House of Commons will make the determination of whether they agree with us, but our unique design gives us the ability to introduce Senate public bills and allows us to raise issues that simply cannot be heard or understood at first glance by the House of Commons. The Maritimes have only 25 MPs, and as I said, this makes it more difficult for us to be understood.

Honourable senators, crucially, jurisdiction also confers a moral responsibility to act. Rising sea levels due to climate change are the most existential threat to Atlantic Canada. The same oceans that provide for our prosperity threaten to tear us apart.

The United Nations said that the Chignecto Isthmus is the second-most-threatened area in North America due to climate change, after the city of New Orleans.

The Government of Canada has a duty to keep this country together. The Maritimes are not junior partners in Confederation and deserve to be understood and to be treated fairly. The only way for the Senate to make this clear to the House of Commons is to vote yes for Bill S-273 and allow them to have their deliberations and make the final decision.

Thank you so much, honourable colleagues. I hope for and look forward to your support.

Hon. Colin Deacon: Would Senator Quinn take a question?

Senator Quinn: Yes.

Senator C. Deacon: I understand that over the 100 years leading up to 1990, ocean sea levels rose by about 10 centimetres, but since 1990, the rate has about tripled, so it’s another 10 centimetres. That means the 400-year-old Acadian dikes are seeing more change, more rapidly, than before. Do you have data that speaks to that more eloquently than I can, to the urgency?

Senator Quinn: We heard evidence at committee where exactly that type of situation was described, and the numbers are, of course, in our transcripts. But sea-level rise is increasing faster and faster every year. I can say that with some certainty because when I started at Port Saint John in 2010, we had docks on the west side of our port that were dry. When I left in 2021, those docks were regularly covered with water. That’s attributable directly to the sea level rise that I personally saw as the CEO of Port Saint John.

Senator C. Deacon: That causes me to recall a daughter of Saint John Catherine McKinnon, who made a Nova Scotian ballad quite famous in the 1960s. It causes me to think: If we don’t act on this, will the rest of Canada be saying, “Farewell to Nova Scotia”?

Senator Quinn: I certainly won’t attempt to sing that song here, but I will say that I have been asked about this. Here I am, a senator from southern New Brunswick, from the city of Saint John — the south end of Saint John. As young lads, Senator Cormier and I used to play street hockey together down in Saint John. It is a fond memory we both share.

The reality is that as a former CEO of Port Saint John, I could say that Nova Scotia’s becoming an island might be to the advantage of my former port because they would get residual business. There’s no question about that. But as I’ve said to people who asked me why I am taking this on, it’s because I’m a senator in the Senate of Canada. I have to raise my level of understanding and vision to my region and to Canada and what’s important to Canada.

That’s why I’ve been championing this particular initiative. This area is so vitally important to our transportation system but also to the protection of the Trans-Canada Highway, the rail line that runs through there, the farmlands that have been established and, as importantly, to the people of the area, who know that their cities of Amherst and Sackville will be flooded — one at 35%, and one at 50-60%. We heard that in committee. That could lead to loss of life. It will lead to loss of property.

I am fully committed to doing my best in my job to represent this regional issue because otherwise it might not be heard. That’s why I talk so passionately about getting this through the Senate. We’re the Senate; we’re not the elected chamber. If my colleagues here decide to pass this, the bill goes to the elected chamber. Let them have their debate. Let them decide whether this will go to the next step.

If it goes to the next step, it goes to cabinet. If cabinet decides to do something, they have that choice. They can decide to do nothing. They can decide to leave it where it is now, where negotiations have maxed out in terms of the money, the 50-cent dollars.

Again, I’m urging that we pass this bill so it gives a chance for additional negotiations. I don’t expect that we will get 100-cent dollars. That’s not what this is about. This is about fairness. This is about equity. This is about being treated fairly.

Two or three weeks ago, we heard about a well-deserving project being funded at 60% by the federal government. You have heard me speak about other projects that have been funded at 100%. I’m just looking for at least the fairness of what we witnessed at the 60% level. But that’s not my decision. It’s not the decision of parliamentarians. It will become the decision of our cabinet should they choose to go in that direction.

I say let’s give them the chance in the lower chamber to have their debate. If it goes to the government, the government will decide.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I rise today to speak very briefly on Bill S-273, the Chignecto Isthmus Dykeland System act. As we know, this bill proposes to declare the Chignecto Isthmus Dykeland System and related works to be works for the general advantage of Canada. It would invoke the federal declaratory power under section 92(10)(c) of the Constitution Act to enable the federal government to assert its exclusive legislative authority over this project.

Let me begin by thanking Senator Quinn for bringing this initiative forward and, more importantly, for shedding light on an area of the country that is important to Atlantic Canada. Its extensive transportation systems and parklands are important for economic growth and vitality in the region and for wildlife preservation and maintenance. This is deserving of greater understanding and, indeed, dialogue.

However, respectfully, the government does not believe that the mechanism being sought in Bill S-273 is the appropriate measure, and it cannot support this bill for several reasons, some of which I’d simply like to put on the record today.

Senator Quinn mentioned correctly that the invocation of the declaratory power would bestow legislative authority over the area but does not in and of itself carry a funding requirement. That is correct, but money is relevant to the bill and to the project and the need for remediation. The government is aware that the project will be an expensive one and that the provinces are hoping that the government will be forced, morally or otherwise, to assume the full cost of the work to be done.

Colleagues, as you know, Senator Quinn mentioned that both New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have applied for funding under the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund, a program under Infrastructure Canada. This is a collaborative cost-sharing approach. It would enable the federal government to work with the provinces to find a middle ground, a common ground, for dealing with the financial components of this project.

I know their discussions have begun, and the federal government would be pleased to continue them.

Most importantly, and Senator Quinn alluded to it, the issue of jurisdiction over the isthmus is currently before the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal on a reference that was put to the court by the Government of Nova Scotia in July 2023.

The Government of Canada, along with a few other provinces, applied for and was granted intervenor status in this matter. It respectfully disagrees with Nova Scotia’s position that legislative jurisdiction over the isthmus already rests with the federal government.

As such, it’s the position of the Government of Canada that this issue should not be dealt with until the court has clarified the issue of jurisdiction. To do otherwise is to pre-empt the question that’s currently before the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal.

Finally, colleagues, Bill S-273 would also likely impose new obligations on the government, and this could have the unintended consequence of setting a new precedent that would affect or could affect similar land systems in the future, including those that may be affected by climate change and require remediation.

For those reasons, the government cannot support Bill S-273 in its present form. The government believes the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal should hear arguments from all parties and intervenors and pronounce with an informed and adjudicated decision on that basis.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Hon. Pierrette Ringuette: Senator Gold, will you take another question?

Hon. Leo Housakos: Senator Gold, I listened to your remarks. I don’t want to get involved in debate on this, but, number one, the declaratory powers have been used many times before in very similar instances, so it is constitutional. At our committee, we heard from a number of constitutional experts, and all of them said it’s constitutional.

I have seen this game plan before from governments. I saw it from the previous government when they were trying to renege on fundamental responsibilities in terms of the Samuel De Champlain Bridge, because it was politically expedient, for a variety of reasons, not to invest in it and to try to push that off to the Quebec government.

The first question: Won’t you agree that the declaratory power has been used many times?

Second, the Province of Quebec didn’t have the wherewithal to rebuild the Samuel De Champlain Bridge, and it would be nearly impossible for any province. It required billions of dollars. Just like right now in Atlantic Canada, with regard to critical infrastructure like the Chignecto Isthmus — and we have heard from many witnesses that it touches a number of provinces, the whole region of Atlantic Canada — they don’t have the wherewithal to go forward with a project like this. Why doesn’t the government recognize that if we, as a federal government, don’t step up on infrastructure building, what do we need the federal government for in this country?

Hon. David Richards: Will you take a question, please?

The Hon. the Speaker: Do you have a question, Senator Richards?

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons with Bill C-20, An Act establishing the Public Complaints and Review Commission and amending certain Acts and statutory instruments.

(Bill read first time.)

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the second time?

(On motion of Senator Gold, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading two days hence.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Quinn, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dagenais, for the third reading of Bill S-273, An Act to declare the Chignecto Isthmus Dykeland System and related works to be for the general advantage of Canada, as amended.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Honourable senators, I’m speaking at third reading of Bill S-273, which was introduced by the Honourable Senator Quinn. Although I seriously doubted the bill’s value initially, I chose to support this initiative at committee.

The bill would declare the Chignecto Isthmus Dykeland System to be for the general advantage of Canada, thereby invoking the federal government’s declaratory power as set out in the Constitution Act, 1867.

We invited not one, not two, but three leading experts in constitutional law to the Transport Committee so we could draw on the broadest possible expertise. Professors O’Byrne, Leach and MacFarlane appeared before the committee, and all of them said it was entirely possible and in accordance with the rules to invoke the declaratory power to bring the Chignecto Isthmus system under federal law. Only one of the witnesses, Andrew Leach, considered such a designation unnecessary, as he felt that the isthmus is already under federal jurisdiction, given that it spans two provinces, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.

Everyone agreed on three other points. First, declaring works to be for the general advantage of Canada achieves only one thing: It subjects them to federal legislation. Second, under no circumstances does the assertion of this declaratory power require the federal government to spend any money at all on the work in question. Third, the fact that an appeal has been brought before the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal to place the Chignecto Isthmus under federal jurisdiction in no way prevents parliamentarians from passing legislation. In short, there’s no substantive constitutional or legal obstacle to this bill. The debate essentially revolves around politics, and each senator is therefore at liberty to take a position.

As I see it, this bill is purely political. By invoking the declaratory power in Bill S-273, Senator Quinn is trying to put more pressure on the federal government to be more generous in funding the isthmus dikeland rehabilitation and pay more than 50% of the cost. The fact that this bill has received the blessing of the premiers of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia makes it all the more political. I confess that I feel a little uncomfortable about getting so directly involved in a dispute between the federal government and the provinces.

Once again, Professor Macfarlane considers it outside the scope of our role as legislators. In this regard, he said, and I quote:

There are no distinct limitations on the various purposes a piece of legislation may have. Parliament is free to use legislation to hold government to account, to impose direct obligations on it, and I see no reason why legislation could not be used to impose an element of symbolic obligations or political obligations through legal instruments.

This declaratory power was used nearly 500 times since Confederation, as Senator Gold mentioned. Professor Nicole O’Byrne, from the University of New Brunswick, also indicated that, when Parliament invokes this power, it’s an entirely political decision that’s not reviewable by the courts. However, Professor O’Byrne also reminded us of the origins of the Confederation pact and its context. The construction of a railway connecting Halifax to Quebec was a condition for Confederation for the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. This rail line, vital to the Maritimes’ supply chain, crosses the Chignecto Isthmus which is being threatened by climate change. Professor O’Byrne added that, historically, the federal government has paid for most of the infrastructure work when the provinces were unable to do so.

Furthermore, the bill wasn’t considered in a vacuum. In the middle of the committee’s study, Prime Minister Trudeau announced to great fanfare that the federal government was going to repatriate the Quebec Bridge and pay the full cost of its rehabilitation, to the tune of $40 million per year for the next 25 years. The bridge, he said, is critical infrastructure for the St. Lawrence River corridor. There’s no doubt about that.

The next day, the Prime Minister went to Bathurst and met with local journalists who asked him why the federal government was funding 100% of the Quebec Bridge rehabilitation, but no more than 50% of the Chignecto Isthmus renovation work. The Prime Minister’s answer surprised me. He said, and I quote:

It is a vital link, but it is also a provincial highway. . . . We will be there as a partner, but perhaps it would be better if the governments of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick took the fight against climate change more seriously. . . . Unfortunately, they are doing what too many Conservative politicians are doing, and that is looking for easy arguments so as not to have to make the necessary investments that their citizens need, investments that are their responsibility to make.

My jaw dropped when I heard that. Are we to understand that the federal government’s decision to pay for the renovation of critical infrastructure depends on the provincial government’s political stripe?

Are we back to the Duplessis days when we had to vote for the right party to get funding for our roads?

To me, it is clear that the Chignecto Isthmus straddles two provinces, that it has a rail line, that its history is closely connected to the Confederation pact and that it is as much in the general advantage of Canada than the old Quebec Bridge, if not more so.

As a Quebec senator who believes in fairness among the provinces, I wasn’t happy with that differential treatment. I will therefore be voting in favour of Bill S-273 for all of the reasons that I mentioned.

Thank you.