Hon. Jim Quinn: Would you take another question, senator?

First, I want to say that I appreciate you bringing the bill forward. I support the bill, but on the question of this amendment, I’m a bit confused, in a way, in that, as Senator Patterson said, the government has had many court cases that it has had to deal with because of oversights in consultations with First Nations. While section 35 is there and there is a duty to consult, that often is challenged in the courts and often results in lengthy, multi-year court cases at great expense to everyone.

This legislation is so fundamental in terms of Aboriginal rights, as you said, for sustenance hunting and things of that nature that wouldn’t it be an advantage to make sure that as officials look at the regulations, that there is not an “oops” moment and that they are absolutely sure that they must consult First Nations rather than, yes, section 35 is there, but that will lead to court cases that could go on for long periods of time?

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

Thank you for your remarks, senator. My question is pretty simple, and that is that I think all of us, when we were appointed — certainly since 2016 — had a tremendous interaction with the Prime Minister who reminded us that he would like us to give serious consideration to his policies but to add value where we thought value was necessary and strengthen that process.

Clause 8, I think, is greater certainty, and if this chamber, in its wisdom, decides that, “Yes, we are going to accept the amendment,” would you agree that it’s not the government that we send it back to? We send it back to the elected chamber, which includes government members, of course, but it also includes the entire chamber. Shouldn’t that be our job, if we agree, to let the elected chamber vote and decide whether they agree or not?

Hon. Jim Quinn: Thank you to my colleagues from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and thank you, Senator Aucoin, for sharing your story. It really underscored for me the importance of the amendment moved by our colleague, Senator René Cormier.

[English]

Thank you, Senator Kingston, for your remarks about the importance of what our previous leaders in New Brunswick did for our population.

Tonight, I would like to make a couple of final observations. I think that Senator Cormier did an excellent job of underscoring why clause 8 is so deserving of the amendment that he has proposed.

I would like to underline a couple of other things: The other place sent us this bill with amendments from their committee. It gave us the opportunity to look at a good bill, and the opportunity to have sober second thought about how we improve it. I believe that is what our job is. And I understand the pressures — at this time of year — of bringing legislation through the process. However, I also believe that the House, the other side, made amendments in clause 7. But as our colleagues have so frequently pointed out, it didn’t really ensure the long-term security of the programming aspect by ensuring that the finances were properly addressed in clause 8 of the legislation. I believe that is something that is so essential.

I had the pleasure of sitting in on the Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee for one of my colleagues who could not be there. Therefore, I was a voting member, if you will, and it was so impressive to hear the dialogue taking place in that committee. That particular evening, officials from the Province of New Brunswick, my own province, were there, and so I had the opportunity to speak with them before and after the session. I thought their presentation was a strong and good presentation. I thought they responded to questions in a fair, equitable and open manner.

One of the questions they were asked was whether the bill is adequate as is and whether it helps their province. The answer was yes. Debate was stopped because we ran out of time. The chair of the committee was so eloquent in recognizing that there were other questions. The question I had, which would have been my follow-up question and which I had the opportunity to put to them afterwards, was this: Yes, it helps strengthen our position, but would it be stronger for the province to ensure that clause 8 had the amendment that we were talking about tonight? They agreed that, yes, it would. I did not have the opportunity to ask that question in committee, so I am outlining that for tonight.

I am speaking as a senator not just from New Brunswick but from Canada, where we have linguistic minority rights across this country — as Senator Aucoin so eloquently described with the story he grew up with in the province next door to mine. Senators, there are other areas of Nova Scotia that had that same experience. The southwest part of Nova Scotia, as you all know, is also similarly challenged. I think it is our responsibility to do our sober second thought and strengthen this bill without doing it unjust harm, noting that the other side agreed unanimously with what they did. However, I think they made a small oversight by not doing exactly what Senator Cormier is trying to achieve in his amendment. We are duty bound to at least put that amendment back.

My colleague Senator Ravalia noted today that we just did something like this with another bill that went back with an amendment. It was accepted, and it is back over to the Senate — as I understand. Surely, the other house intended to bring a stronger document. I think the sober second thought has made it that much stronger again to ensure that it will be a little more difficult for future governments to change funding arrangements for linguistic minority groups in any part of our country.

Therefore, I am rising tonight to thank Senator Cormier for his foresight because it is forward-looking to ensure that our country really wraps its arms around official bilingualism. We must also keep in mind Indigenous rights in our country. This is something we are duty bound, quite frankly, to pass and send back to the other place so they can then agree or disagree. That is their privilege.

I think it is our duty to strengthen this bill in the manner that has so eloquently been outlined tonight.

Thank you.

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

Hon. Jim Quinn: Thank you for your speech, Senator Moodie. My question goes back to clause 8. You acknowledged that there was concern with clause 8 in terms of courts in the future, perhaps, not interpreting funding as — in the case that you quoted — being guaranteed and locked in, and funding is the subject matter of clause 8.

In your statement, you made it clear that you agree that there needs to be the guarantee that funding be ongoing. My question is this: If that is the case, why wouldn’t we make it explicit? There are new systems being developed. Why would we want to put future generations at risk of having a court review a case, make a determination that it is not explicit and, therefore, not be in favour of locking in funding for those minority groups, not just in New Brunswick but across the country?

Hon. Jim Quinn: Yes.

Senator Quinn: Thank you, Senator Wells, for your speech and the debate and questions back and forth.

Regarding your example of the farm south of North Gower that ships up to North Gower to have grain dried, the place that dries the grain, will it benefit from Bill C-234? If so, would it be safe to assume that the person sending the grain to that facility would have less likelihood of increased costs going to the right to use that facility?

Senator Wells: Thank you, Senator Quinn. That is a good question. The farmer who would send the grain to North Gower for off-site drying told me they proposed to dry the grain on their own farm with a new dryer. She showed me a picture on her phone of what this dryer looked like. I was highly engaged because I do not know anything about this, and I am happy to learn what a grain dryer looks like. They would do it on their own site. They would have immediate savings in their costs because if they send it to North Gower, they are also paying the additional cost of transport.

They are probably absorbing some of the higher costs that the off-site dryer would have because they would be subject to a carbon tax.

The first part of your question was, “Would the off-site grain dryer in North Gower benefit?” Probably not because they will get less product, because that will be staying on the farm for a more efficient, less costly drying that would not, obviously, include the carbon tax.

Hon. Jim Quinn: I would like to ask a question if the senator will take one.

Senator Quinn: Thank you very much. During the committee’s work, did any members — CAP is purporting to represent whomever they represent — but the people who are represented, did they email? Usually in these situations, we get advocacy from people who are part of the organization. So did any of that happen? Were there any emails or letters that committee members or you received that said, “Hey, I’m part of that organization, and they do represent me.” Was there any of that at all?

Hon. Jim Quinn: Minister, I have a quick question. Minister Blair, with his Department of National Defence, or DND, portfolio, says a billion dollars is going to be taken out of that department. However, we have men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces who are tasked to respond here at home, and also increasingly in different locations around the world. Can we have assurance that the government and your department will not interfere with — will promote, in fact — the procurement of necessary equipment? I ask because the Canadian Armed Forces have an equipment issue.

Hon. Jim Quinn: Thank you for joining us this afternoon, Mr. Duclos.

[English]

When bidders respond to tender requests, they respond to technical and other requirements as outlined in the tender and submit their cost for delivery of a service and a product. Our process is such that the lowest qualified bid wins the contract. However, far too often the qualified bid with the lowest price has been underbid to the point that “extras” or “work arisings” result in a final price that far exceeds the price submitted in the bid. What steps can the government take to reduce the risk associated with underbidding?

If I can go back briefly — because I know time is always too short — to your first question on the integrity of the process, I can assure you that it is my responsibility and the responsibility of my officials to make sure that when a contract is awarded, the requirements that the businesses signing those contracts accept are followed up on and enforced if it is necessary to enforce them.

Senator Quinn: Thank you, minister. As someone who has been involved in many contracts in government, I’ll come back to examples in other jurisdictions where the lowest bidder and highest bidder are put aside, they look at the average, and anybody that is qualified can be awarded the contract at the average or below.

Can the government not look at other jurisdictions to see how they reduced the risk of underbidding in order to win the contract and then catching up with extras and work arisings? It’s a very specific question.

[Translation]

Hon. Jim Quinn moved second 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.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise before you today to discuss Bill S-273, An Act to declare the Chignecto Isthmus Dykeland system and related works to be for the general advantage of Canada.

The general advantage of Canada is certainly a foundational principle for works that are indeed in the national interest. Regarding the Chignecto Isthmus Dykeland System that holds back the waters of the Bay of Fundy, this is a work that is clearly in the national interest and for the general advantage of Canada, both due to it being critical infrastructure but also because of the urgent need to adapt to rising sea levels and increased frequency of severe storms due to climate change.

For those in this chamber who are unaware of where the Chignecto Isthmus is located, it is the narrow strip of land predominantly along the Missaguash River, forming the boundary between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The isthmus itself is a vital trade corridor that represents $35 billion in trade, 15,000 vehicle transits per day and hundreds of thousands of people every year. The trade corridor is a choke point for a single national railway, the Trans-Canada Highway and fibre-optic lines that link transatlantic cables.

All those assets that support Canada’s economic prosperity, interprovincial and international trade and communications are at risk due to flooding, were it not for the Chignecto Isthmus Dykeland System. Perhaps of greatest importance, the dikes protect the tens of thousands of Canadians who live and work in and around the isthmus. The dikes further protect farmlands that are essential to food security, and we have heard several times in this chamber the importance of food security in the face of Canada’s disappearing farms and farmlands.

The Chignecto Isthmus is an area that is shaped by history and the national interest. In the 1600s, the Acadians created one of the first pieces of critical infrastructure in Canada. Constructing the first series of dikes was to help tame the mighty tides of the Bay of Fundy, which, in the area, rise and fall over 50 feet twice every day. These dikes are also key to protecting and improving the agricultural production in the area.

The isthmus is integral to the foundation of Canada. The Fathers of Confederation from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick entered into Confederation in part because section 145 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which obligated the federal government to complete an intercolonial railway linking Nova Scotia with Quebec.

Senators, the same Fathers of Confederation thought it proper to give Parliament the declaratory power to assist in determining which works are in the national interest by transferring jurisdiction.

This is an understandable question to raise: Why use the declaratory power now for this project when it has not been necessary in the past? The answer, colleagues, is unfortunately straightforward: Maritimers and other Canadians who live near coastal waters face the sobering reality that we are no longer in a situation to prevent climate change but, rather, we must adapt to it. The Fathers of Confederation would have been aware of the 1869 “Saxby Gale” that generated the largest historically documented storm surge, which was above the twice-daily high water I referred to earlier by five to seven feet. It devastated Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, particularly the Chignecto Isthmus. The storm caused the 25-foot dikes to fail, destroying croplands, livestock and resulting in the deaths of Canadians who lived in the isthmus.

Senators, that rare occurrence is now projected to be all too common. A 2020 report commissioned by the New Brunswick government indicated that coastal flooding will become more frequent due to sea-level rise, because, in the future, even weaker storm systems will produce flooding impacts like the most extreme storms of the past.

In the region of Chignecto Isthmus, the sea level is rising rapidly. From my experience as CEO of Port Saint John, I can tell you that, when I began that job in 2010, it was unusual to see water on the docks. By the time I left 11 years later, it was not an unusual occurrence.

Further action must be taken now by the federal government. The provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island are not arguing that all climate change adaptation measures must fall under federal jurisdiction. The Chignecto Isthmus Dykeland System is a distinct and invisible series of works that must be looked at further than simply by the sum of its parts.

The governments of the Atlantic provinces routinely cooperate, because this is a reflection of our shared history and culture. We primarily concern ourselves with doing the right thing rather than whether it’s our responsibility to do so. We do not like to think of a situation where the Atlantic provinces would not get along. However, what if New Brunswick disagreed with prioritizing the upgrades of the dikes in Chignecto? There would be a direct impact on Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, along with the rest of Canada, that rely on that vital trade corridor.

This highlights the necessity of the Chignecto Isthmus being in the federal interest.

I would add that, in the case of Newfoundland, one must remember that cargo goes to Newfoundland largely by marine mode, and that marine mode crosses the isthmus with the goods needed for all of the island of Newfoundland.

As I mentioned in this chamber last June, the Council of Atlantic Premiers issued a communiqué calling upon the Government of Canada to create a new infrastructure program to address the impacts of climate change and build infrastructure that supports economic growth. The premiers noted in their communiqué that the Chignecto Isthmus is a vital corridor that is at risk due to rising sea levels, and reiterated that the federal government has a constitutional responsibility to maintain links between provinces and must fully fund this project.

The Fathers of Confederation, in their wisdom, gave Parliament, via section 92(10)(c) of the Constitution Act, 1867, a separate, quasi-judicial power to make a policy — dare I say a political judgment — to both reinforce and transfer jurisdiction from the provinces over works to the federal government. The question before us today in the Senate is whether the Chignecto Isthmus Dykeland System is for the general advantage of Canada. In other words, is this proposed project so important to the national interest that it warrants jurisdiction being transferred to the federal government for the purposes of rehabilitating the dykeland system? The answer, honourable senators, is “yes.”

Senators, I will be clear that Bill S-273 is not a money bill and does not compel the Government of Canada to spend money. The call by the Atlantic premiers for the Government of Canada to fully fund any program to remediate the Chignecto Isthmus is a policy decision.

Presently, the Government of Canada is offering 50% funding via the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund, where the total cost for remediating the dikes is projected at $650 million. I argue that 50% funding is insufficient for something that is in the national interest. Further, the practical reality of the project is that, under the current infrastructure program, New Brunswick will spend disproportionately more money on repairing dikes located in New Brunswick that are more to the benefit of the other Atlantic provinces. Therefore, again, this warrants Parliament invoking the declaratory power.

Colleagues, the use of the declaratory power is helpful to the federal government overall, because it allows them to create the policy exception for 50% funding. We are often told — and I can attest to this from my prior experience as a chief financial officer in the Government of Canada — that jurisdiction is the first line of defence as to why a government should not involve itself in any given matter, especially in the complex world of federal, provincial and territorial relations.

However, colleagues, if there is a trade corridor that is so important to the economic security of Canada, exceptions should be made. In this case, there is the precedent of the Champlain Bridge, where Parliament has already invoked the declaratory power.

Colleagues, in 2014, Parliament passed the New Bridge for the St. Lawrence Act, which declares that the Champlain Bridge and related works are to be for the general advantage of Canada. The new Champlain Bridge connects the Island of Montreal with the south shore of the St. Lawrence River. The bridge is a vital economic corridor with 50 million cars, buses and trucks crossing yearly, which is integral to interprovincial trade and commerce with an estimated value of $20 billion every year. This is of vital importance to the movement of goods and people and to the overall Canadian economy. This same logic is also true for the Chignecto Isthmus Dykeland System. It is a single point of failure.

I will remind honourable senators that the cost of the new Champlain Bridge was $4.2 billion to be paid exclusively by the federal Government of Canada. In addition, and as Senator Downe is aware, the current government’s decision to remove tolls has also resulted in a revenue loss of at least $3 billion over the first 30 years. That revenue would have accrued to the Province of Quebec. That is being covered by the Government of Canada.

Critically, the Government of Quebec did not contribute on a 50% basis because the Parliament of Canada, via the declaratory power, declared this trade corridor to be in the national interest and gave the legal policy authority for the federal government to assume 100% of the costs. It is fair and reasonable to offer similar agreements to all parts of our federation when there is a national interest at stake.

Honourable senators, Bill S-273 serves a dual purpose: to raise awareness here in our Parliament but also to offer a clear path forward. Atlantic Canadians are all too familiar that our small population translates into fewer seats in the House of Commons. Far too often, our challenges are not well heard.

Due to the Great Depression and the Second World War, the Chignecto Dykeland system began to fall into disrepair, resulting in minor breaches of the dykes. The director of the Dominion Experimental Farms and Nova Scotian E.S. Archibald wrote in 1943 to senior officials within the federal government to take action as part of a wartime emergency:

These breaks in the dykes are jeopardizing the highways and railroads in many sections. Should high tides carry away portions of our railroad or highway it might very well cause a serious setback to the movement of our troops and war material.

Honourable senators, how can one argue that the Chignecto Isthmus, vital to Canada’s war efforts in Europe, is not in the national interest? Mr. Archibald’s request was met initially by only one-third funding. However, in their continual advocacy for regional fairness, Maritimers noted that the federal government already passed the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act to deal with environmental threats to agricultural production in Western Canada.

Maritime members of Parliament and senators championed the idea that this program should be expanded nationwide but also include flood mitigation. These efforts resulted in the passing of the 1948 Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act. In this act, the federal government provided 100% of the funding for the Chignecto Isthmus dykes to hold back the Bay of Fundy. Colleagues, it is therefore with great irony that the federal government today is only offering 50-cent dollars for the structures that they fully paid for in the 1940s and 1950s.

In providing a historical overview in a 1951 paper, the head of the federal Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Administration noted that, in addition to provided protection for agriculture, the dykes protected the “town or village services, railroads and highways, all of which makes them essential,” again noting the national interest.

Much like the constitutional commitment of the Government of Canada to build the Intercolonial Railway was instrumental in having Nova Scotia and New Brunswick join Confederation, the creation of the Senate was also key to having the Maritimes enter the larger union.

This chamber serves as a voice of the regions. I am not alone in asking for your support to send this bill to committee. The Provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are asking for the national government to take notice of the vulnerability of the Chignecto Isthmus and to provide additional funding. Bill S-273 serves this goal by removing policy barriers.

For those in this chamber who have concerns about invoking the declaratory power at this stage, replace your concern with curiosity. Again, my only ask is that you support me in referring the bill to committee at the earliest opportunity so that we, as senators, have the ability to study this issue in more detail.

Atlantic Canada is an equal partner in Confederation. Issues affecting Atlantic Canadians are, indeed, in the national interest. I call on all colleagues in this national Parliament to support sending Bill S-273 to committee.

Thank you.

Hon. Jim Quinn: Honourable senators, I rise before you today to honour my friend Walter Ball — a well-respected family man, music teacher, city councillor, problem solver and community leader from my city of Saint John, New Brunswick — who passed away on September 23 at the age of 92. Years ago, I was introduced to Walter through my sister Eileen and her friend Tzigane, Walter’s daughter.

Walter was known to welcome many people into his home. He was a genuine and humble man who loved to help others. He was involved with the local YMCA and helped support families while they settled into the community. Walter was part of the homestay program with the university to help house students in his own home — students from as far away as China who attended the University of New Brunswick Saint John — so they would feel more comfortable while studying abroad. He felt that integrating people from other countries was important, and that everyone should be welcomed with open arms.

He was a talented concert pianist who studied at the Toronto Conservatory of Music in the 1950s. He competed in piano concert competitions all over the world, visiting over 40 countries throughout the years. He embraced different cultures and languages all while enjoying his passion for music.

In the 1960s, Walter had his own TV show in Saint John called “Kaleidoscope.” He interviewed people in the arts and was able to incorporate and play music, which was themed to the subject of the interview.

Walter taught music in schools throughout the years. He connected with his students through music, and believed that everyone could perform musically.

He inspired many students, teaching tens of thousands, and formed multiple successful choirs throughout the decades that won many awards. One of his students recalled, “You just wanted to be good for him.”

He founded a steel band and personally built steel drums by hand for his students, as well as developing his own sheet music so everyone in his class could learn to play those drums.

Later, in the mid-1970s, the Lancaster Kiwanis Steel Band evolved as a performance band, once performing for former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau — on the tarmac of the Saint John Airport — when he visited our city. He continued to perform around the world, touring up until their last performance in France in 1984, and many of the band’s original members continue to play in newly formed bands today. In 1985, he became the executive director of Festival by the Sea, formed in conjunction with the Canada Games when they came to Saint John.

Walter was a builder of not just steel drums but all manner of things. When his granddaughter was 2 years old, he researched plans for and built her a rocking horse, which led him to build 200 more commissioned pieces over the next 15 years.

He later built his home on the Kennebecasis River with his sons, Conrad and Spenser, where he lived with his wife of 60 years, Suzanne, and continued to play piano until his recent passing.

Rest easy, my friend, and may you continue to shine with style with your many berets and capes from above. Thank you, meegwetch.

Hon. Jim Quinn: Thank you, senator, for a very informative speech; it was wonderful. My question is to help gather a bit of clarification.

You mentioned that we’re losing seven farms on average in Canada every day. There is no doubt that supply management is essential to the sustainability of those sectors that you talked about. What about the other farms — even some of the ones under supply management — that are at risk because of other factors? How will the committee take that into consideration? Do you anticipate that will be raised at committee?

[Translation]

Senator Gerba: Thank you for your question, senator. I’ll start by clarifying that I’m not a supply management expert. What I’m focusing on is Canadians’ needs and their food security and food sovereignty. Therefore, if other sectors need protection, I believe the government is entitled to put them forward. I think we need to be guided by the knowledge that this bill is for Canadians because it involves their food security.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Moncion, seconded by the Honourable Senator Yussuff, for the adoption of the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, entitled Senate Budget 2023-24, presented in the Senate on February 7, 2023.

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

(Bill read first time.)

Hon. Jim Quinn: Honourable senators, I draw to your attention that yesterday the Atlantic Premiers met in Prince Edward Island and issued a statement on the need for a new federal infrastructure program to address the impacts of climate change and to build infrastructure that supports economic growth.

Specifically, the premiers highlighted that the Chignecto Isthmus between New Brunswick and Nova Scotia is a vital corridor at risk due to rising sea levels. Make no mistake about it: Sea-level rise is on a dramatic incline that will put at risk communities and transportation systems on all of Canada’s coasts, including the Isthmus, and, of course, this area provides the only rail and highway links from Canada to Nova Scotia and Nova Scotia to Canada. Billions of dollars in trade and tens of thousands of people cross this area every year.

Further, the Atlantic Premiers reiterated that the federal government has a constitutional responsibility to maintain links between provinces and fully fund the Chignecto Isthmus climate change adaptation project.

Honourable senators, if you recall, in April I asked Minister LeBlanc whether he would promote and support the Nova Scotia and New Brunswick premiers’ request for 100% federal funding. One solution to help in this goal is to use the declaratory power to transfer jurisdiction of the project to the Government of Canada. Considering that the four premiers are calling for increased federal support, this reinforces how the isthmus is a trade corridor of national importance and must be viewed so by the Government of Canada. Projects such as this, including, for example, the construction of the Champlain Bridge in Montreal, have been supported 100% by the federal government when in the national interest, and ensuring the security of the corridors crossing the isthmus is, without a doubt, in our national interest.

Honourable senators, when all four Atlantic premiers are united, I ask that we take note and hear their concerns. After all, it is our constitutional responsibility to promote regional interests. Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Jim Quinn: Thank you for your speech. The last few weeks we’ve heard about food security and the various risks that are involved in the agriculture industry in Canada. Last week, I was the host of a panel in New Brunswick where one of the senior people from Nutrien was present and it was on exactly this topic. The one thing I walked away with was the impression of the challenges that our agriculture industry face, whether it be passing the family farm on to kids who may not want that farm or any number of issues. To me, this bill seems to be of absolute fundamental importance to food security. Do I have that wrong? This is something that we can do today — in this session of Parliament — to help secure the future of our agriculture industry and our farms.

Hon. Jim Quinn: Thank you for that speech, because it helped bring some clarity for me with respect to why Bill 96 is referenced in the legislation. The explanation I thought was very helpful insofar as the distinction of French in the province of Quebec.

But as a New Brunswicker, I worry about other parts of the country that may not understand Bill 96 and its importance to underscore the importance of the French language in Quebec.

Why would we not stress the importance of English and French across Canada, specifically in a province like New Brunswick where it is the official position of the provincial government that French and English are the languages of New Brunswick? I’m just a little worried that there could be confusion in some parts of Canada that may not have a very noticeable French presence or in other areas of the country where, perhaps, English is more dominant than French.

Hon. Jim Quinn: Senator Wells, would you take a question?

Senator Wells: I certainly would, Senator Quinn.