海角社区官网

鈥淚t鈥檚 clear that Nova Scotia writ large designed this reference as a political pressure tactic to be used as ammunition in the political arena and as such we would argue that it鈥檚 not just a waste of this court鈥檚 time, it is an abuse of this court鈥檚 time,鈥� said Ward.

The isthmus has had large dikes since 1671, when Acadian settlers arrived, and there are currently about 35 kilometres of dikes that help protect roads, farms and communities.

Nova Scotia has long maintained that the federal government should pay the entire cost of upgrading protections for the isthmus 鈥� currently estimated at $650 million 鈥� but Ottawa has agreed to pay only half of the project.

In July 2023, the province asked the court to settle the constitutional question of whether the transportation, trade and communication links across the Chignecto Isthmus are within the exclusive legislative authority of parliament. The question of who should fund any upgrades was not part of the court reference.

Nova Scotia was joined in the court case by New Brunswick, while Prince Edward Island was also granted intervener status.

Ward pointed out that even if it鈥檚 decided that Ottawa has sole jurisdiction over the low-lying, narrow strip of land that connects the two provinces, it would have no obligation to fund projects aimed at preventing catastrophic flooding.

鈥淪o what is the point of asking you to find exclusive jurisdiction?鈥� she asked the court.

鈥淧ractically speaking things are unfolding as they should be, just like they did in the 1940s,鈥� Ward said. 鈥淐anada has agreed to pay 50 per cent of the cost 鈥� and is working with the provinces.鈥�

As she did in a hearing in March, Ward asked the court to decline to answer the question, but she added that if it does decide to rule on the merits of the case it should do so 鈥渋n the negative.鈥�

The court reserved its decision on Wednesday.

The provinces maintain that Ottawa has the responsibility to protect rail, power and communication lines as well as inter-provincial trade from climate-change impacts, but federal lawyer Jan Jensen argued that this does not require Canada to protect the dikes.

Jensen argued that there was no evidence that the dikes alone are necessary to protect infrastructure such as the rail line.

鈥淚t鈥檚 not clear 鈥� at what level of sea level rise that the rail line鈥檚 own embankments and bridges are not sufficient,鈥� he said.

Daniel Boyle, a lawyer for Nova Scotia鈥檚 attorney general, had argued during a hearing on Tuesday that an eight-metre storm surge would flow over the dikes and submerge the highway and the rail line. At 12 metres, he said “Nova Scotia would effectively become an island.鈥�

During his reply to the court on Wednesday, Boyle was asked by Justice David Farrar how he could 鈥渄ivorce himself鈥� from previous comments made by Premier Tim Houston, who recently wrote a letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney seeking confirmation that Ottawa would agree 鈥渟hould the court decide that paying for the isthmus is a federal responsibility.鈥�

鈥淐ounsel for Nova Scotia have consistently throughout this proceeding maintained and made clear that funding is not at stake,鈥� Boyle said. 鈥淣ova Scotia鈥檚 position 鈥� has been that the outcome of this proceeding could advance discussions. This is a reference opinion, it鈥檚 an advisory opinion.鈥澛�

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 21, 2025.