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.