Chignecto Isthmus case waste of Nova Scotia Court of Appeal's time: federal lawyer
HALIFAX — Nova Scotia and New Brunswick's attempt to persuade a panel of judges to conclude Ottawa has responsibility for the infrastructure on the Chignecto Isthmus is a 'waste and abuse' of the court's time, a federal lawyer argued Wednesday.
Lawyer Lori Ward told a three-member Nova Scotia Court of Appeal panel that 'the ultimate issue despite all protestations to the contrary, is funding.'
'It's 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's not just a waste of this court's time, it is an abuse of this court's time,' 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 -- currently estimated at $650 million -- 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's 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.
'So what is the point of asking you to find exclusive jurisdiction?' she asked the court.
'Practically speaking things are unfolding as they should be, just like they did in the 1940s,' Ward said. 'Canada has agreed to pay 50 per cent of the cost and is working with the provinces.'
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 'in the negative.'
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.
'It's not clear at what level of sea level rise that the rail line's own embankments and bridges are not sufficient,' he said.
Daniel Boyle, a lawyer for Nova Scotia's 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.'
During his reply to the court on Wednesday, Boyle was asked by Justice David Farrar how he could 'divorce himself' from previous comments made by Premier Tim Houston, who recently wrote a letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney seeking confirmation that Ottawa would agree 'should the court decide that paying for the isthmus is a federal responsibility.'
'Counsel for Nova Scotia have consistently throughout this proceeding maintained and made clear that funding is not at stake,' Boyle said. 'Nova Scotia's position has been that the outcome of this proceeding could advance discussions. This is a reference opinion, it's an advisory opinion.'
This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 21, 2025.
The Canadian Press
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBC
23 minutes ago
- CBC
True sovereignty
Amidst all the buzz about the future of the Canadian Arctic, some Nunavummiut believe there's one voice missing — the young generation of Inuit who call this land home. Your browser does not support the video tag. Pause By Samuel Wat Jul. 27, 2025 Gazing at the land and water surrounding Apex Beach, Iqaluit's Manu Kunuk reflects on how his home in the Arctic has become a focal point for geopolitical tensions. There's a lot of uncertainty around the world right now, but if there's one thing he's sure about, that's the need for Inuit — and especially youth — to be at the heart of Arctic policy. 'We're the future of the land — we're going to be the next leaders,' he said. Like many Nunavummiut, Kunuk is still trying to learn about the true meaning of Arctic sovereignty, but he believes it starts with protecting the land and the people living on it. From a colonial perspective, sovereignty in Canada's North is often tied to military exercises, major infrastructure projects and defence spending — actions the government takes to show its control of the vast region. Less commonly explored is how Nunavut's communities and the people who live there are already at the heart of Arctic sovereignty. Nolan Qamanirq, from Arctic Bay, doesn't believe there is a word in Inuktitut that truly describes sovereignty, and it's hard to talk about land ownership because his ancestors didn't believe in that. 'The way the term is used today, especially in Ottawa and in places in Iqaluit, it really feels hollow. It's about military presence, mining approvals, transportation corridors. It's really not about what Inuit and communities prioritize,' he said. images expandAlassua Hanson set out on a Students on Ice expedition in the Arctic in 2016. This is one of several avenues she believes helps empower youth to become future leaders. The way the Canadian government is currently trying to reaffirm its borders in the Arctic makes Iqaluit's Alassua Hanson think back to the country's colonial history. 'I find the federal government does control Arctic sovereignty, in a way, because they did try to claim Nunavut before with the missionaries. And Inuit in general were trying to stay on their own land,' she said. These days, Hanson sees an increasing number of meetings, forums and summits about Arctic sovereignty. She believes some of those discussions should also happen inside the classroom and in youth groups. 'I think a lot of youth should be present or should be knowledgeable about ongoing things for Arctic sovereignty. And I don't think a lot of it is taught in school at all,' she said. Giving back to the community Three of Canada's main parties made military announcements in Iqaluit as part of their election campaign blitz earlier this year, but not all of those pledges involved consultation with local leaders. Nunavut's Premier, P.J. Akeeagok said he only learned about the Conservatives' Arctic announcement the day of, and he stressed the importance of consultations. Part of the Liberal government's own announcement in March was to establish three new military hubs in the North, with Iqaluit set to be home to one of them. At the time, the Department of National Defence said the hubs will consist of airstrips, logistics facilities and equipment and are intended to support military aircraft operations and also serve as storage for equipment and spare parts. 'Sovereignty isn't proven by planting a flag or opening a port. It's proven by a community's ability to feed itself, govern itself, and pass on knowledge without interference.' Nolan Qamanirq To many Canadian leaders, Iqaluit is a strategic location for missions in the Arctic. It has a functional airport and seaport that can accommodate both the navy and air force, for example, and it is also home to one of Canada's forward operating locations, which supports temporary missions. Yet Kunuk says he often struggles to find information about Arctic sovereignty and updates to what's happening in the territory. If the Canadian government is serious about sovereignty initiatives, he would like to see more information publicly shared about security developments. 'Hopefully community consultations, maybe even more training [if there is] supposed to be a military base here,' he said. Bringing Inuit into the conversation Despite all the talk, Hanson doesn't see much of a military presence in Nunavut. And when there is, she said she often doesn't see Inuit involved. She said she knows very little about what happens up in Alert, Nunavut, for example — the location of Canada's northernmost military outpost. She knows of a few people who head up there occasionally for work, but very few of them are Inuit. When there are members of the military in town, or people visiting for some Arctic security conference, she hasn't seen those visitors engaging much with the community. 'They could be more involved. They could provide food hampers, they could do a workshop on the meeting and what they're doing here. They could be present in the community rather than holding five day long meetings or get an opportunity to hear from the locals,' she said. She adds that youth should get the opportunity to hear about the results of the work these travellers are doing in the community. Creating global citizens Empowering Canada's future leaders has been a lifelong passion for Geoff Green. He founded Students on Ice (SOI) 25 years ago, which organizes educational expeditions — combining science and traditional knowledge — for youth to learn more about the Arctic. Talking about military spending and nation-building infrastructure projects is all well and good, he said, but he wonders where the investment is for youth. 'You're building a house of cards if you're not also investing in youth … they're going to be the ones we need for an upskilled workforce, and the leadership that's needed,' he said. In his view, a big part of youth empowerment comes from investments in education, plus programs to connect with the land and other youth around the world. He said there are more opportunities for youth nowadays compared to when he first founded SOI, but it's imperative that Canada builds on that. 'So engaging with youth from other parts of the world, seeing their worldviews, their knowledge bases, and having those friendships and relationships formed [early] are critical. We need global youth addressing global issues together,' he said. 'It's an investment in experiential education, which is truly one of the most proven and most powerful forms of education.' Kunuk echoes that sentiment, having been a delegate to international forums in the past, including to the Arctic Circle Assembly in Iceland last year. 'It really opens the doors for me, especially being here in Nunavut, in an isolated community and territory,' he said. images expandFor Manu Kunuk, Arctic sovereignty means ensuring the people living in the region are healthy and well. No flag or port can replace true sovereignty Ultimately, Qamanirq believes Arctic sovereignty can only exist if Canada recognizes the true priorities of northern communities. 'Sovereignty isn't proven by planting a flag or opening a port," he said. 'It's proven by a community's ability to feed itself, govern itself, and pass on knowledge without interference.' 'I don't think we need more youth leadership programs that teach us how to behave like bureaucrats. We need more programs that teach us our rights in our language, that explain what was negotiated in the land claims and what was left out," he added. Qamanirq also calls on Canada to be more open to partnerships with other countries in the circumpolar world, who share similar interests and challenges. 'If there was a serious attitude about sovereignty in the Arctic, [Canada] would let Inuit strengthen ties across the Arctic without forcing national policy filters. These connections are older than the borders and we shouldn't have to ask permission to remember them.' About the Author Footer Links My Account Profile CBC Gem Newsletters Connect with CBC Facebook Twitter YouTube Instagram Mobile RSS Podcasts Contact CBC Submit Feedback Help Centre Audience Relations, CBC P.O. Box 500 Station A Toronto, ON Canada, M5W 1E6 Toll-free (Canada only): 1-866-306-4636 TTY/Teletype writer: 1-866-220-6045 About CBC Corporate Info Sitemap Reuse & Permission Terms of Use Privacy Jobs Our Unions Independent Producers Political Ads Registry AdChoices Services Ombudsman Public Appearances Commercial Services CBC Shop Doing Business with Us Renting Facilities Accessibility It is a priority for CBC to create a website that is accessible to all Canadians including people with visual, hearing, motor and cognitive challenges. Closed Captioning and Described Video is available for many CBC shows offered on CBC Gem. About CBC Accessibility Accessibility Feedback © 2025 CBC/Radio-Canada. All rights reserved. Visitez
Globe and Mail
an hour ago
- Globe and Mail
Financial crime loopholes in U.S. stablecoin law offer a cautionary tale for Canada
Hoopla over America's new stablecoin law is fuelling fears that Canada is missing out on the latest cryptocurrency boom. The Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act, or the Genius Act, was signed into law by President Donald Trump last week, creating a regulatory framework for stablecoins pegged to the U.S. dollar. (Stablecoins are cryptocurrencies that have values tied to another form of currency or financial asset to maintain steady prices.) A related bill, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, advanced to the U.S. Senate. The Clarity Act for short, it proposes to divvy up regulatory oversight for virtual assets between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The crypto irony: Trump's new laws for stablecoins will only reinforce U.S. dollar dominance At first blush, the U.S. government's 'crypto week' was a resounding success because those two pieces of legislation are helping digital assets go mainstream south of the border. But anti-corruption groups, including Transparency International U.S., are warning the Genius Act and the Clarity Act include loopholes for money laundering and sanctions evasion, a forewarning for other countries, including Canada, as they vie for leadership in the US$5.7-billion global digital asset economy. 'To other countries, I would encourage lawmakers to actually take a risk-based approach and take into consideration that we have a global economy,' said Gary Kalman, executive director of Transparency International U.S., in an interview on Thursday. As Mr. Kalman points out, crypto is not a typical brick-and-mortar business and it carries a higher risk for illicit finance. That's because it is relatively easy to set up offshore crypto-issuing companies that sell into other countries without having a physical presence in those jurisdictions, he said. 'That is the type of risk analysis we would urge other countries to consider when moving forward with legislation,' he added. Transparency International U.S., the Free Russia Foundation, the Financial Accountability and Corporate Transparency Coalition and the Hudson Institute's Kleptocracy Initiative offer a sobering analysis of America's signature stablecoin legislation. 'The risks are real and urgent. Iran, North Korea and Russia have turned to cryptocurrency and stablecoins to bypass international sanctions and move illicit funds,' the anti-corruption groups state in a joint letter to top U.S. congressional leaders, including the Speaker of the House of Representatives Mike Johnson. 'If the U.S. does not close the loopholes that can be exploited by these actors, the financial architecture advanced in GENIUS and CLARITY will further accelerate the growth of opaque and lawless financial networks.' Specifically, the groups outlined four key problems with the two pieces of legislation. The first involves the Genius Act's differential treatment of stablecoin issuers registered in the United States versus those based in foreign or offshore jurisdictions. Under the law, foreign stablecoin issuers, such as Tether, the world's largest stablecoin, are able to participate in U.S. markets via decentralized exchanges and peer-to-peer transfers even if they don't register, the groups say. The U.S. Treasury, meanwhile, has the latitude to provide exemptions to foreign issuers, allowing them to participate in centralized exchanges after the expiration of a three-year grace period. As a result, foreign issuers will not receive proper regulatory oversight. A second problem involves the Genius Act's failure to impose anti-money-laundering (AML) and anti-terrorist-financing obligations on secondary-market participants, including digital asset exchanges, custodians and brokers. 'The result is a bill that affirms the status quo while ignoring how kleptocrats, terrorists and other criminal actors access and move digital assets,' states the letter. 'Further, GENIUS weakens compliance by stating that issuers must follow AML rules, only 'as applicable' – a vague and unenforceable standard.' A third weakness involves glaring gaps in sanctions enforcement. Notably, the Genius Act does not apply to anonymizing technologies, such as mixers, and other intermediaries that obscure funding sources, the groups say. The Clarity Act, meanwhile, overlooks sanctions evasion entirely even though digital assets have become a favoured tool of criminals to sidestep economic restrictions. Lastly, exemptions for decentralized services and platforms under the Genius Act, coupled with the Clarity Act's failure to require ownership disclosures from all market participants, will frustrate enforcement of those laws, according to the groups. We won't let Americans buy our biggest bank. Why let them buy our biggest crypto firm? Canada, meanwhile, is facing mounting calls to create its own comprehensive national strategy for crypto, including stablecoins. 'Stablecoins are reshaping global finance, but Canada is still on the sidelines,' states a new report by Western University's Ivey Business School. 'While other countries use them to strengthen payments and attract investment, Canada lacks a homegrown alternative tied to its currency.' The report rightly urges Canada to create a 'unified regulatory framework' for digital assets, noting oversight is currently split among regulators including the Canada Revenue Agency, the Canadian Securities Administrators, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada and provincial agencies. Creating a national regulatory framework should indeed be a priority because businesses need a consistent set of rules. But in doing so, the federal government must draw lessons from America's legislative missteps on financial crime. Canada is already being marketed abroad as a secrecy jurisdiction that can be readily exploited by kleptocrats, money launderers, sanctions evaders and other crooks. In the rush to catch up on crypto, Ottawa cannot afford to replicate Washington's mistakes.
Vancouver Sun
2 hours ago
- Vancouver Sun
Trump's tariff threats against Canada face legal hurdles ahead of August deadline
Donald Trump's plan to realign global trade faces its latest legal barrier this week in a federal appeals court — and Canada is bracing for the U.S. president to follow through on his threat to impose higher tariffs. While Trump set an Aug. 1 deadline for countries to make trade deals with the United States, the president's ultimatum has so far resulted in only a handful of frameworks for trade agreements. Deals have been announced for Japan, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines and the United Kingdom — but Trump indicated last week that an agreement with Canada is far from complete. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. 'We don't have a deal with Canada, we haven't been focused on it,' Trump told reporters Friday. Trump sent a letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney threatening to impose 35 per cent tariffs if Canada doesn't make a trade deal by the deadline. The White House has said those duties would not apply to goods compliant with the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on trade. Canadian officials have also downplayed expectations of a new economic and security agreement materializing by Friday. 'We'll use all the time that's necessary,' Carney said last week. Countries around the world will also be watching as Trump's use of a national security statute to hit nations with tariffs faces scrutiny in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled in May that Trump does not have the authority to wield tariffs on nearly every country through the use of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act of 1977. The act, usually referred to by the acronym IEEPA, gives the U.S. president authority to control economic transactions after declaring an emergency. No previous president had ever used it for tariffs and the U.S. Constitution gives power over taxes and tariffs to Congress. The Trump administration quickly appealed the lower court's ruling on the so-called 'Liberation Day' and fentanyl-related tariffs and arguments are set to be heard in the appeal court on Thursday. The hearing combines two different cases that were pushing against Trump's tariffs. One involves five American small businesses arguing specifically against Trump's worldwide tariffs, and the other came from 12 states pushing back on both the 'Liberation Day' duties and the fentanyl-related tariffs George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin called Trump's tariff actions a 'massive power grab.' Somin, along with the Liberty Justice Center, is representing the American small businesses. 'We are hopeful — we can't know for sure obviously — we are hopeful that we will continue to prevail in court,' Somin said. Somin said they are arguing that IEEPA does not 'give the president the power to impose any tariff he wants, on any nation, for any reason, for as long as he wants, whenever he feels like it.' He added that 'the law also says there must be an emergency and an unusual and extraordinary threat to American security or the economy' — and neither the flow of fentanyl from Canada nor a trade deficit meet that definition. U.S. government data shows a minuscule volume of fentanyl is seized at the northern border. The White House has said the Trump administration is legally using powers granted to the executive branch by the Constitution and Congress to address America's 'national emergencies of persistent goods trade deficits and drug trafficking.' There have been 18 amicus briefs — a legal submission from a group that's not party to the action — filed in support of the small businesses and states pushing against Trump's tariffs. Two were filed in support of the Trump administration's actions. Brent Skorup, a legal fellow at the Washington-based Cato Institute, said the Trump administration is taking a vague statute and claiming powers never deployed by a president before. The Cato Institute submitted a brief that argued 'the Constitution specifies that Congress has the power to set tariffs and duties.' Skorup said there are serious issues with the Trump administration's interpretation of IEEPA. 'We don't want power consolidated into a single king or president,' he said. It's expected the appeals court will expedite its ruling. Even if it rules against the duties, however, they may not be immediately lifted. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has said the Supreme Court should 'put an end to this.' There are at least eight lawsuits challenging the tariffs. Canada is also being hit with tariffs on steel, aluminum and automobiles. Trump used different powers under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to enact those duties. Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here .
