Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue 16 - Evidence - Afternoon meeting
ST. JOHN'S, Monday, June 13, 2005
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 1:10 p.m. to examine and report upon Canada's international obligations in regards to the rights and freedoms of children.
Senator Landon Pearson (Deputy Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: Welcome to our roundtable. I will first ask Florian Bizindavyi to introduce the young people here, and then we will hear from them.
Mr. Florian Bizindavyi, Coordinator, Centre of Excellence for Youth Engagement: Good afternoon, honourable senators. The Centre of Excellence for Youth Engagement, which is a nation-wide collaboration of partners, is led by the Students Commission of Canada. It is through the Centre of Excellence for Youth Engagement that we found some young people who would be willing to attend before you to express some views and opinions.
I will leave a document that explains the work of the centre.
In Newfoundland, I was able to find some amazing young people. With me is Shireen, Megan, Ryan and Rachel. We also have here some observers.
Ms. Megan Fitzgerald: Thank you very much, Florian. Because this is an informal meeting, I am not going to talk very imperatively.
On behalf of us all, let me say that this is kind of a bittersweet opportunity, because article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states that we should be able to express our view. I am 18 today, and this is my first time opportunity to do that. It is kind of bittersweet for all of us. We are so excited to be here and express our views to such important people, people who can actually make a difference in Canada. It has taken me 18 years to get to this point — and there are so many other youth here in St. John's who will never get this opportunity. That is just my opening preamble.
Ryan and I are a team — Team E — and we are going to talk about education and empowerment and how they apply to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
I will start with empowerment. Florian called me about a week ago and asked me to come here. I said okay. He told me I would have to read the Convention on the Rights of the Child. I was, like, well, what is that, because I had never heard of it before. I felt badly admitting that — because I am an elitist in my school. I am very involved in the school, I maintain high marks, and I try to be involved in the community. Yet, someone like me who knows so much about what is going on, at least in my community, knew nothing about my rights, as set out in the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
That is a big part of education and empowering youth. How can we feel motivated and empowered to implement our rights into our own lives if we do not even know them? That is something that we have to work on together — us as youth and you guys as the big shots. We have to work on that, so that we can be empowered to put them into place in our own lives.
Even the little things. When I was on the telephone — a conference call — with Florian, and we were reading the rights, I was thinking that the rights are such an idealistic view of a society and how a child should live, and then there is reality, of course.
Article 16 talks about privacy and how a child has the right to his or her own privacy and the right to express himself, through any forum, as long as it does not harm other people, of course.
Even in our everyday lives, at school we cannot even write notes without teachers picking them up. Violations of our rights every day, little tiny bits of our rights, include things such as teachers checking our lockers, parents going through our drawers, these things. Although we are told that these actions are for our own good — ``I am just making sure nothing is going on'' — they are a violation of our rights as children. How can we put our rights into play and into our lives if we do not even know them? That is an important thing.
Certainly, it is very idealistic of me to think that every right will be abided by in our everyday lives. If I was writing notes to somebody all day during class, something would have to be done, but confiscating and reading the notes is crossing the line. That is one of the big things.
The second thing about empowering us to recognize and to implement our rights is to motivate kids to read the convention and find out what their rights are. It is also important to motivate people by having good laws. Who are you protecting really? When I talked about this at my house, my dad said something powerful to me. He said, ``You know, Meg, I can go out on a boat right now and take a teenager with me, someone who is 14 years old, and have sex with that person, because it is the legal age of consent, and that would be fine. However, if I went out the next week and took a cod up over the side of the boat, my licence would be gone, my boat would be gone, and I would be out of a job.'' Really, it makes you think about our legal system and who we are protecting. We need the motivation to say these rights are good, they are what we need in our lives, so let us push them so that people can make them part of their everyday lives.
That is my spiel on empowerment, and now the other part of Team E, Ryan, is going to talk about education.
Mr. Ryan Stratton: I would like to back up some of Megan's points, and I would like to start by talking about article 29, which basically states that in order for children to develop respect for things like parents, environment, human rights, and so on, children have to know their rights. That is a good plan, that is what we would like to have happen, but we need to reinforce this. It is a good plan for children to know their rights, to be able to develop respect for everything around them, to even be able to mature at a younger age and know their rights, and have some kind of a justice system towards them.
On our telephone call, we agreed that if we introduced all these children's rights to junior and high school students, it might cause a bit of madness. They could abuse these rights, use them to their own advantage. If you start between kindergarten and grade 6 teaching children their rights, they will develop respect for everything around them and they will mature at a younger age and they will be able to be civilized and get along.
Article 29 is a very good point. It is a goal that we want to get to, but we need to reinforce it somehow. It is written on paper, but what is really being done. Article 42 backs that up — it says that everyone, children and adults, should know the children's rights. Again, that is a very good plan, a very realistic goal, but as Megan said, and I am going to back her up, we did not know our rights as children. There needs to be more public awareness and more education on these rights.
As I was reading article 42, it mentioned that some schools have taken it upon themselves to teach human rights in health education classes, and that is a good first step. The opportunity we have here today is a perfect place to tell you that the problem is that we do not know our rights. Even those of us who are so involved, even we do not know our rights, and everybody should know them. That is what article 42 is pointing out.
The government owns the CBC — television and radio. Why not take advantage of that? There are educational shows, cartoons and original series. If the writers of these shows knew the rights of the child, they could incorporate them with the lessons of learning, sharing, fair play and caring for others. You can work in human rights there and really use the CBC to your own advantage.
I think that would be a great first step, along with many other ways, to have everyone know their human rights.
Ms. Rachel Gardiner: What I want to talk about today is basically how Canada, which is such an industrialized nation, is a nation that really does take care of its children. We really do have a nation that is recognized as such a great place to live by the United Nations, but the fact is that we do fall down on some parts of it.
Survival and development of the children to the maximum extend possible is assured under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. What shocks me when I think about this is the number of children living in poverty today in Canada. Governments have not been blind to this. In 1980s, the party in power promised to eradicate child poverty by 2000; in 1980, one in seven children was living in poverty. In 1999, one in five children was living in poverty — a drastic increase.
Obviously, poverty is not the environment for optimum development. The government says that it is trying to achieve the goals of this convention. If we are letting one in seven children live in poverty, then really we are not helping them achieve the best that they can.
Article 4 states as follows:
States Parties shall undertake all appropriate legislative, administrative, and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognized in the present Convention. With regard to economic, social and cultural rights, States Parties shall undertake such measures to the maximum extent of their available resources...
Canada, an industrialized nation and a nation that is regarded as one of the wealthier nations, is not using its resources to the best of its abilities to help these children attain optimum development and move on with their lives so they can get out of poverty. We all know that poverty is a very harsh cycle. It is difficult for children to get out of poverty once they have started living in it, because they often do not have the chance to go on to post-secondary education, because their families cannot support them.
This is something Canada needs to look at. There are various to direct more resources toward children, through child care programs, through more scholarships for post-secondary education, through more affordable housing for families that are in poverty. This is something Canada must do, to help these children attain optimum development and thus the best chance at life. The best way to help these children is to invest in them at a young age. It will benefit all of us, not just the children. Canada must fulfil its obligations under this convention, to really help those children who are suffering.
Ms. Shireen Marzouk: Today, I have chosen to speak about the inability of a child to secure reunification with parents, referring to refugees and immigrants especially.
I attended a refugee advisory council annual meeting last Friday. Some of the stories of what is going on in Canada — a country that stands up for human rights and the protection of children — were very sad.
There is no avenue today by which refugee children in Canada can be reunited with their parents or siblings outside of Canada. Adult refugees can do this, yet minors do not have the right to do so. Minors today only have the right to apply for permanent residence for themselves, and it cannot include parents and siblings.
My question is this: What good is it for a child to live without his or her parent? At the meeting I attended, a 16 year old boy from Sudan spoke. He came to Canada with his mom, and a week later she was deported back to Sudan. The boy is now being treated for post-traumatic stress and depression. Why are children separated from their parents?
Section 7 of the Charter, a child has a right to life, liberty and security. A 16 year old, under the convention, is still a child — every human being below the age of 18 is considered a child. Article 9 of the convention states, in part, the following: ``States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will...''
It is ironic that a country that is very committed to refugee protection, to the rights of children and to principles of family reunification has a law failing to allow refugee children to reunite with their parents and siblings. Just as Rachel said before, we are trying to get our youth to become more educated, to give them that opportunity. It was very important for me to have my parents in my life, to guide me become the person I am today. The 16 year old boy from Sudan is now in Canada, while his mother is in Sudan, half way across the world. A developing child still needs that psychological support from the parents, guardians, or siblings, whoever is to take care of them.
There are many things that can be done. First of all, allow refugee children to include the name of the parent or sibling on the permanent resident application, or remove the bar on sponsorship of social assistance. Also, allow children of individuals recognized as Canadian refugees to be brought to Canada. There are cases where a child is left in a particular country and the parent comes to Canada.
For example, a man who lived in Ghana — he had seven children there — told us his story. His village in Ghana was burned down, and he had been fleeing from village to village for two years. He visited the Canadian immigration office in Ghana, and they told him they had four spots. He told them he had seven children. He was told, ``We have four spots — take it or leave it.'' He thought to himself, ``Maybe I could take three children now, and bring my other four children over later.'' So he told the immigration office he would take the four spots. He is now here in Canada with his three sons. It was so sad to hear him describe how he might never see his four remaining children again.
He said that the process is taking a long time, plus there are DNA tests to prove that the four children are his. They are children. We are trying to get them away from these sorts of things. Canada is not taking any steps towards becoming a better nation for this cause.
The Deputy Chairman: I want to thank all four of you for your comments.
Before we begin, I just want to make one brief comment to Megan, to reassure her and her father, that once Bill C-2 is passed, all children under the age of 18 will be protected from sexual exploitation. Age and consent will be irrelevant under 18 year of age. That is good news for you to take back. Hopefully, it will pass soon.
Everything that all of you have said is extremely interesting. I am particularly struck by the issue on privacy, because, among the many examples of the right to privacy I had heard, that was one I had not thought about. I remember locker searches and those kinds of things. As you say, however, it is one thing to take away a note, but it is quite another to read it. That is something I am going to stuff away in my mind as something we can work on.
The education issue is a huge issue, and the role of the media in education is extremely important. We heard good news this morning about new materials being made available, so hopefully no one will be graduating from grade 12 in Newfoundland in the future without having been exposed to the convention.
I think the issues around immigration are very important. We had the Minister of Immigration in front of us last week. Those are very complex issues. The right of a child not to be separated against his or her will is a very important one. It is not an easy one to resolve. You do not want to expose children to possible exploitation by being sent here in order to get all the others out here. It is a delicate and challenging issue, which is why talking about rights is important because then you can look at the issues in all their complexity. If you do not talk about it from a rights point of view, you do not get that kind of dimension to it.
I think what you are talking about, Rachel, is what they call the principle of first call, which, according to the embedded principle in the Convention on the Rights of a Child, states that children should have first call on a nation's resources.
Senator Carstairs: Until 1984, I was a high school teacher. I do remember confiscating notes, but I have to say that I did not read them. I did not think that I had a right to read them, but I sure had a right to confiscate. I had a real discomfort level with checking kids' lockers, even when we had serious indications that there might be drugs, but I became horrified to discover the amount of pornography in people's lockers — which made me wonder whether I should be checking lockers more regularly.
What touched me in all your stories and your interpretations is the bad job we have done in letting you know your rights. I remember back in 1982 making all of my high school students read the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Every one of them had to read every single line. They thought I was nuts. ``Why is she making us read this Charter?'' I thought it was critical for them to understand their rights as Canadians.
The one article that you did not touch on, which is dear to my heart, is the corporal punishment of children. I am very opposed to corporal punishment of children, whether it is the strap in school, the stick or wooden spoon at home, or whatever, because to me it is dehumanizing and it also teaches violence.
I would really like to hear from you your views about the fact that our law in Canada still allows for the corporal punishment of children.
Ms. Fitzgerald: You know, they kind of made fun of me before we came here. It was, like, you are going to talk for 25 minutes. I am trying not to, but they are looking, so I have no other choice in this matter.
I am guilty — I will say it up front — of not reading the convention in its entirety. When we were talking to Florian on the phone, he told us to read up to article 16. However, now that I know corporal punishment is allowed, I am disgusted. I really am. In my house it was, if I ever did anything wrong — my mom never said anything, never laid a hand on us. Dad never laid a hand on us. No one ever laid a hand on us. However, if I did something wrong, I would hear, ``Wait until your father gets home,'' but he would not even do anything. He would crack the belt and I would go off apologizing, mom, I am sorry. He never touched us. I do not even know why I was so scared. I knew he was not going to hurt us. I knew he would never do that, but he would crack the belt and it scared me so much, and I can see how it almost works.
Violence is not the answer to anything, I do not think. I am totally disgusted. I am dumbfounded that the law allows for corporal punishment of children. I am going to do my best this summer to work on that and to see how far I can get talking to you guys because it is gross. I cannot say anything else. That is disgusting. I do not know how the other senators feel about this, but I am with her on this. We are going to be buddies on this issue.
In school, that really is the worst part for me. What happens in the home, I think, is almost a little different, because this is where you have to learn your values, your responsibilities as a child, and what you want to be when you grow up. In the home is where you learn that. In school, you get educated to use your math, your science, and your social skills, but corporal punishment in school to me is just honestly an awful idea. Why should teachers, people who know us for all of nine months of our lives, have the right to use violence against us if we are chatting in class, socializing, or what have you. Under no circumstances do I believe that teachers, these people who hardly know us, should be given the right to use corporal punishment. I think it is absolutely disgusting. That is all I have to say.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you, Megan. That was a pretty powerful statement. I am glad to say that in schools corporal punishment is no longer permissible, but that is only very, very recent.
Mr. Stratton: I would like to chip in a quick two cents here. There has to be a thin line between corporal punishment and child abuse. If you take that to court — you were corporally punishing him, or were you hitting him? If corporal punishment was taken right out, then there would not be those thin lines, and trying to get out of that child abuse situation.
Violence does not help at all because parents are supposed to help you make the right decisions. They are supposed to help you out. If you are afraid of your parents, if you are afraid that they will physically hurt you, you will not open up to them, you will not talk to them and you will not have a good relationship with them.
If children miss out on a good relationship with their parents, then they miss a lot of that guidance. They miss out on a lot of information that parents can give to children to make wise decisions. If you are afraid of your parents, then you will not go to them. You will not to friends with them. You will not trust them. You will not share with them because you will be afraid. That is my two cents on that.
Ms. Gardiner: What Ryan and Meg have said really sums it up for me as well. What Ryan said about child abuse is totally true. He raises a good point when he says if corporal punishment is illegal, then there are no thin lines between corporal punishment and child abuse, between something that is allowed and something that is illegal, and can be severely punished.
There are so many other ways to teach children what is right and what is wrong, that it should not be allowed, because it is not the only option to teach children. There are so many other ways that people know about. It is not a big secret.
Ms. Marzouk: I think that Rachel touched on a good point. It was used a long time ago in schools for discipline, and it worked, but it is a wrong way to do it. Rachel said that there are other ways to teach children what is right and what is wrong. It obviously comes under what Ryan said earlier about child abuse.
When you are exposed to that stuff when you are young, it traumatizes you as a child too, because it exposes you to violence. Schools do not need more violence. There is already enough violence going on in schools. There are many issues going on today in schools, and students do not need this extra pressure of having to go to school and teachers hitting you. It is not right.
I do not know about you guys, but my school does not use that kind of punishment. There are other ways, like detention, that you can use to discipline a child, which I think are much more effective and a better way of teaching the child that what they are doing is wrong.
Senator Poy: I want the four of you to think about bullying in school. Do you think that is an extension of corporal punishment both in the homes and in the schools that extends to, ``I am bigger, I am stronger.'' The whole thing about corporal punishment is that parents or teachers can hit children who are younger and often smaller — not always, but often. Bullying is an extension of that because those who are physically stronger will bully those who are weaker. I would like you to express something on that.
Megan, you talk about privacy. You mention letters at home being read by parents. I am a parent and I was very careful when I raised my children to respect their privacy. If their doors were closed, I would always knock. I would never enter unless I am invited. I would never read anything they write in their desk, or even on their desk. Do you think it is right for parents to read letters of children? Are they protecting them, or is that an invasion of privacy? To me, that is an invasion of privacy. Maybe you can answer that and we can go on to bullying.
Ms. Fitzgerald: I am on both sides. I certainly think it is an invasion of privacy. It is personal stuff. Even though, as a child, you are living under your parents' roof, and you are certainly not paying for your own room, it is given to you, you are provided with that, so parents need to have some kind of knowledge of what is going on with your life. If you do not talk to your parents, how will they know if they do not read, but I do not think it is right? It is certainly an invasion of your privacy, but on the other hand, Internet journals are very popular now. I know a story of a young girl who is about 13, I think, and she had written in her journal on the Internet that she did not want to live any more, and she wanted to kill herself.
Her journal was a private journal, so not everyone could see it, but she had left her page open on the computer and her mom read it. Her mom found out that this is what was going on, and it was the only way that she knew. It was the only way she found out there were such issues with this child. In that case, if the mother had not read the journal, I know that the people surrounding the issue fully believe that the girl would have killed herself. In some cases, it is helpful to know what is going on in your child's life, but it is an invasion of their privacy. I think it needs to be something that you talk about in the family and not just as part of Canadian rights, or the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It needs to be something that you are comfortable with in your own family.
If something is that private, if you do not want something to be found, in my opinion, it will not be found. I have good hiding places for stuff that I really do not want to be found. It is hard to say if it is right or not, but certainly on both sides of the issue I am for and against. I know that is the worse kind of answer you could ever get.
Senator Poy: That child who left the page on the computer, I think the child wanted it to be read. As you said, you know all the hiding places, so you would not leave it on the computer. I think that it was a message there. Whenever people who need help and they do not want to talk about it, somehow there is always that message asking for help, and that may be part of it too.
I want to mention something Ryan said about using the CBC to teach Canadians, and even cartoons for little children to learn about their rights. I think it is a great idea, and Ryan will be in the right program. He is going to Ryerson in Radio and Television Arts, so he will be in the right field.
The Deputy Chairman: Ryan, there is a wonderful series but it is outdated, so it is now time for you to do them again. It was done by the National Film Board called Rights from the Heart, and it is for all age groups. They have a set for the three main age groups. If you take this on as a project, look them up and you will see where other people have been. It will give you some ideas. It is all a graphic work. It is wonderful.
Senator Oliver: Megan began her talk by saying that this was a bittersweet experience. I think that it is for us a sweet experience because of all the dozens and dozens of witnesses that we have heard. This particular session is one of the most revealing and one of the most interesting. We, the people of Canada, and the senators, are lucky that you students have agreed to come and share with us some of your views on the covenant. It is a sweet event for us.
I have two questions. Two presenters said we must know what our rights are, and we fail unless we know what our rights are. I practised law for 32 years and I had a lot of clients come and see me. Frankly, most Canadians have no idea what their rights are. In the olden days they used to pay me money to tell them what their rights were.
I am being facetious, but my serious question is, I do not know what rights you want to know. Do you want to know the rights under the UN charter? Do you want to know the rights under the provincial and federal Human Rights Act? Do you want to know the rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and how many others, Right to Privacy? What rights do you need to know?
My second question, which is a philosophical question, is there are so many things that every citizen and person in Canada has a right to have, and we cannot have them all. How do we prioritize them? For instance, Rachel made me think of this when she talked about poverty. Every Canadian certainly has a right not to starve and to have food, but also every Canadian has a right to have a house and a home and not sleep out in the street. Everyone has a right to an education, everyone has a right to health care and so on, but the fact is, 25 per cent of Canadians cannot read or write. That is just a fact.
What do we choose? Should we put all our efforts into making sure that every child has a right to read and write, and forget about whether they have a house? Which of these things should be a priority? I would like to hear the four of you comment on that, if you do not mind.
Ms. Gardiner: What you talked about with a right to housing, a right to food, and a right to education, I think food and the shelter should take precedence because when a child has this kind of environment in which to grow, education comes along with it. If we give someone an education without an environment in which to grow, in which they are loved, and in which they are safe, then this education does not go anywhere. It does not have an effect on them as much as if they are in an environment where they feel comfortable, safe and provided for.
If a child is able to get an education, but does not have anywhere to go with it, then it is useless for them. Sure they are getting some sort of education, but they do not have an environment in which to use their education, or an environment where they can further their education.
What they need first is to have food and shelter, and to have the opportunity to have optimal development. When that happens, that is when education is key, and that is when education will have the biggest impact on them.
Ms. Marzouk: I did a psychology exam a couple of days ago when we were studying about child development, and there was one pyramid called Maslow's hierarchy of needs for a child; physiological and safety. The two things that are most important are for a child to feel secure and for a child to be provided with food. Education will come after that, but education will come when these two needs are met. If they do not feel secure, how are they supposed to concentrate on education when their basic needs are not met?
They are children. They are capable of so much. Like Rachel said, you want them to prosper and grow as people, but if they lack these two things in the beginning, then how are they supposed to carry on.
Senator Oliver: What about the tens of thousands of children who die every year from malaria, AIDS and hepatitis.
Ms. Marzouk: Are you referring to the health care system in Canada?
Senator Oliver: I was thinking of the world, but I realize this is Canada.
Ms. Marzouk: What can we do about that? I do not really understand the question.
Senator Oliver: Globally, health care has to be a component of it; that is all I was saying.
Ms. Marzouk: Yes, definitely. It comes under physiological. If a person is dying of a disease, why would they care about education? If they are suffering and they cannot get out of bed, why would they care about education? Good point.
Mr. Stratton: I would like to back everybody up by saying, if I am home sick in bed, then I will not do my homework and I will not worry about studying for a test. As long as you have food in you, a place to live and you feel comfortable, then you can take care of education without feeling hungry, without feeling cold. I think that is the basis, your physical needs are met, and then you go on to educate yourself.
Your first question was, what rights should we know about? As children, to read every detail on every right will be impossible. Growing up in school, if we are exposed to a general summary of rights — here are some of your rights concerning this, concerning that and all different topics that skim the surface — if that piques your interest, if you want to know more about your rights, if you want to know in-depth what exactly these rights mean, then you will research it yourself.
In school, they can talk about smoking, they can talk about sex education and they can talk about math, but if you want to learn more, then you can take it upon yourself. I think if we are exposed to all kinds of different rights that are general summaries, if we are interested, we will find out more. I think it should be given to everybody, at least a summary, so people know exactly what is going on and where they can find more information.
Ms. Fitzgerald: I am glad I do not have your job.
The Deputy Chairman: I was going to suggest you all should become one of us.
Ms. Fitzgerald: Senator Oliver, it is so hard to sit here as youth and as children and talk and act like we know it all. Then you ask us questions, and, wow, we do not know much at all.
I have grown up with the understanding that I knew everything. I got that once I hit 17. I am pretty much a know-it- all, but these questions come up, and it is hard to know the answers, especially the question you raised about which rights we should know. At the risk of sounding repetitive, it is hard to distinguish what kind of an education we should provide for any children. Why should math be any more important than a health class, but, of course, math is mandatory in our education system?
It is hard, always, to decipher which pieces of our lives should be taught in school. That applies to which rights we should learn. Certainly, as Ryan said, we should learn just enough to know. I had no inkling what these rights were until I read them last week because they were never brought up in school; they were never brought up in my social studies classes, global development classes, history, or whatever. If it was at least talked about, then we could provide some kind of motivation to learn more. As I know of right now, it is not in any curriculum in school. Maybe in some of the bigger schools in different courses and stuff, you can do a whole course on human rights. However, in elementary school when you learn that smoking is bad and marijuana is not going to help you through life, you never learn that your teachers are not supposed to read your notes. You never learn that your parents are not supposed to hit you.
You know that violence is bad, but you are never taught those basic rights. I am not saying they are not important — right now immigration laws, immigration rights and rights of separation are so important in our lives as Canadians, and what is going on socially right now — but for me to learn about that today would not help me. It needs to be the basic rights of privacy, the right to speak and the right to be heard. Those kinds of rights will spark the interest of youth and children.
The Deputy Chairman: I think you make an extremely good point. You have given us a great deal. The most fundamental thing about human rights is respect, and the smallest child deserves to be respected. That is essential, in my view. Senator Oliver has done a lot of work on human rights, but that is my sense. There is something in the Vienna convention that all human rights are inherent, universal, interdependent, and interrelated.
It is not like the hierarchy of needs that Maslow talks about. However, it means that you cannot study well if you are hungry, but that does not mean you do not have the right to education if you are hungry. You still have the right to education. It means that you may not be able to benefit adequately from it. I just want to leave that little message there.
Senator Cochrane: I would like to commend you all because I think you are wonderful. You are an asset to the province. You have given us some great thoughts. Senator Carstairs has taken the wind from my sails because I wanted to know from every single one of you how we can get more young people like yourselves involved in the political system, in making legislation, and in seeing it accomplished. How can we do that? Young people are not entering the political arena.
Mr. Stratton: I will start with that one. I do not mean offence to anybody here, but when older people want young people to get involved, they need to have a middleman. If anyone here, no offence, came to me and said, we want you to be involved, I would think, what exactly is going on here? Are they just going to sit down and look at notes all day?
If you have organizations like the students' commission, like what Florian does here, if you know that he is your resource for youth, then you should keep in close contact with youth groups like that.
He will come all excited. He will take notes and learn what it is all about. Then, he will summarize it for us, get us excited, get us hyped up and we will want to be involved because he lets us know that it might be a dream to us. However, when we bring it to you older people, then you can make it reality because you have that power. If there is a bridge between what you guys are doing with politics and youth, and it is important to us, and we are excited about it, then I think youth will get involved.
This was no big public thing. It was not on the news and it was not on TV. There is not a big rally for it. Definitely I would say there are not many youth who know that the Senate committee is here right now. If they knew the Senate Committee was here right now, do you think that a lot of youth would be outside fighting for causes, they would be lobbying, and they would want to talk to you?
If you provide youth with the opportunity, if you let them know that the opportunities are there, and you get someone who is there as a middleman to get them excited, then you can get youth involved in anything because we want to get involved; we are looking for stuff to do. We are sick of sitting home saying this place is boring, I am going for a walk. We want something to do and if the opportunity comes up, we are really excited.
Ms. Marzouk: I honestly think that the responsibility is not only on people involved in youth groups, but the responsibility is on us, the youth that are involved and active in our community, to educate those people around us that we are doing this.
As Ryan said, it is more appealing to people our age to have the younger generation — I am not saying that you guys are old. They are more energetic and more appealing to young people because we are involved, and basically you stand as the role model for children.
One thing is the lack of communication and education amongst the youth today, and this can all start with our basic student bodies at schools. They succeed at getting youth involved. In my school, we have a number of societies and a number of clubs, and the more youth that are involved, the more youth get involved. I found that today it is really our responsibility to go out there.
I will give you an example. I am on the Muslim Student Executive and a gentleman approached older members and told us that they wanted someone to give a presentation at our school. The president, a professor of engineering, said, ``I will give the presentation.'' I said, ``They are junior high school students and they are not going to listen to you, I will tell you that.''
Honestly, having someone like that, say, ``These are Muslims, this is what they do;'' junior high students do not care about that. They want someone who is energetic. One of my friends and I went to the school. It was a great turnout. It was amazing. They stood for us and clapped. One girl asked for my autograph. You feel that you are making a difference. It is our responsibility as youth to motivate people that are out there to become educated, to become more involved in the communities, and to open their minds and get involved in many things.
Ms. Gardiner: I want to echo that education is important because youth do not understand what is going on in politics. When it is on the news, it really does not make sense to them. I think people become more involved when they understand. If youth understood how different things in the political system affected them, then they would become more involved. I think that what Shireen says is true, that youth who understand and understand how it affects them, can educate other youth as to how it affects youth as a whole so that everyone can get involved and everyone can make a difference.
If youth understood how they could make a difference, I think they probably would get more involved, so education is the key.
Ms. Fitzgerald: If I was a big shot, I would lower the age to vote. Before Belinda Stronach crossed the floor and there was a little love story, I did not care one bit about politics. It took that for me, and I got so interested, it was like a TV soap opera. I was so excited, I stayed up. Now I sleep a lot. I stayed awake to watch CTV. That is a big step in my life.
Before this came along, it was the whole budget issue, and I knew that I will be 18, and that means I have to vote. If I have to vote, that means I have to learn everything. I was in this big panic last month to try to learn everything that ever happened in politics. I was lucky she crossed the floor because it got me a little bit interested.
As youth, we have so much on the go that we will not do anything unless we have to. For some of us, we will not do it unless we have to. By lowering the age to vote, you provide the opportunity to have to learn about this stuff, to have to make the decisions, and to inform yourself about what is going on. You have to be 18 to vote. Where are we learning our information? It is not in high school any more because once you are 18 you are almost out of Grade 12. You do not learn about politics in high school. You are just starting university and you have to get used to a whole new life in university. You cannot start teaching everybody politics then.
I think if you lower the age to vote, it would be one of those things to think about because if I knew that I had to vote at 16, then at 15, I probably would have been a little more interested and tried to get involved. I know that is a big issue, and, of course, Megan, you cannot sit here and say lower the age to vote, and you guys will go back and do it.
The Deputy Chairman: That is a great way to end. Thank you very much for coming. I hope you have enjoyed it as much as we have. This has been reported. It is part of our official record and it is really meaningful. Thank you so much.
The committee adjourned.