Honourable senators, this item stands adjourned in the name of the Honourable Senator Martin, and after my intervention today I ask for leave that it remain adjourned in her name.

Is leave granted?

Honourable senators, I am mindful of the time and will be direct.

I rise today to address Bill S-201, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Regulation Adapting the Canada Elections Act for the Purposes of a Referendum (voting age).

I was reviewing my notes on this subject and my previous speech on an earlier version of the bill as I watched the CBC national news coverage last night.

The preparations for and the gathering of the stories to share with Canadians on the eve of the eightieth anniversary of D-Day and the liberation of Normandy were especially poignant and — of course — well presented on the CBC, upon whose high standards of journalism we have come to depend. I will reserve further comments on the CBC for Senator Cardozo’s inquiry.

Honourable senators have often heard me refer to the leadership of Yukon First Nations. Among my papers, I have a 2021 media release from the Council of Yukon First Nations, or CYFN, entitled “YFN Rock the Vote Initiatives to Empower, Inform and Increase Yukon First Nations Vote.”

The media release included this quote from Grand Chief Peter Johnson. He said:

Our Elders fought hard to be granted the right to vote. Yukon First Nations can ensure our voices are reflected in the next government and that the changes they want to see through the simple act of voting.

In the “Quick Facts” section of that media release, it was noted:

The path to voting rights for First Nations peoples was long and difficult; it wasn’t until 1962 that First Nations were granted the right to vote without conditions in Canada.

It’s especially appropriate that I begin my remarks with a deferential reference to Yukon First Nations. Of the 14 Yukon First Nations, the constitutions of three have a voting age of 16.

The Kaska Dena Council are unsettled, and they include the Liard First Nation and the Ross River Dena Council. The First Nation of Na-Cho Nyak Dun and the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations’ citizens are eligible to vote for chief and council of their self-governing First Nation at the age of 16.

I spoke with then-chief Steve Smith about Champagne and Aishihik First Nations’ voting age prior to giving my speech the last time I addressed this subject.

I wish to repeat the words I shared with you on June 1, 2021:

I had the opportunity recently to ask Chief Steve Smith of the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations how voting at age 16 came about for their First Nations, which is also one of the first four Yukon First Nations to reach a land claim agreement. He credited the more open perspective to his predecessors, recognizing that voting evolved from a young councillor’s desire to involve all youth and have a lower voting age. He also told me that by voting earlier, youth have continued their active involvement in the government and leadership of their First Nations.

On a side note, colleagues, I’m compelled to elaborate on the importance of land claim agreements. When a First Nation, Canada and the Yukon reach a final land claim agreement, it carries with it all the responsibilities of government-to-government-to-government relations. In a First Nation where 16‑year-olds are voting for their government, they have a say. Their government decides who represents them on the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board that reviews all projects, similar to what we were discussing today in Bill C-49. They also have the direction for their First Nation development corporations which invest and spend their funds allocated to them in the land claim agreement, and they have a say in their government that has care and custody of their land.

I follow my comments about then-Chief Smith’s advice with this remark: Our esteemed former colleague Senator Sinclair advised that education would be part of our journey to reconciliation. Let’s take the education and learn the lessons from the First Nations and their respect for youth participation. Let us value their opinions and continue the discourse on lowering the voting age. Let us continue our discussions and send the bill to the committee for further discussion and study.

Honourable senators, it seems to me to be inconsistent, perhaps even hypocritical, as I watch young people learn about and honour the fallen at Normandy and see the respect paid by those young people for those who died in battle for freedoms, including the right to vote. Should we not offer young people the same respect that they have paid to those who fought for our freedom?

As we repeatedly pledge to walk the path of reconciliation and learn from Indigenous peoples who have cared for the land for millennia, why not follow the teachings of the Yukon First Nations who have extended the franchise to 16-year-olds? Should we not, at a minimum, be exhibiting a respectful relationship and include these teachings and discuss whether these same young people should be extended the right to vote?

Ah, yes, the right to vote. If you visit my office or look back at my speech from three years ago, you will note that I have in my office a piece of a tattered purple cloth. It came from a T-shirt that was given to me, and it shows the section that reads: “No woman, idiot, lunatic or criminal shall have the right to vote. Canada Elections Act, 1918.” Women were granted the right to vote in 1918; as noted above, First Nations people in 1962; and incarcerated individuals in 2002.

I haven’t reviewed the details — the history — of extending the franchise to any of these groups of individuals. I do recall voting as a member of the Yukon Legislative Assembly to extend the franchise to those who were incarcerated at the Whitehorse Correctional Centre. I reviewed some of the information presented in discussions with young people in the Yukon and, notably, at the recent discussions during the national Vote16 summit in Ottawa.

May I highlight for you, honourable senators, just one of the Vote16 benefits confirmed in research and discussed recently in Ottawa?

Colleagues may know that Scotland was my father’s birthplace. He was also a member of the Royal Air Force in 1944. Scotland, having achieved a devolution agreement, is very near and dear to my heart.

The voting age in Scotland was experimentally lowered for their independence referendum in 2014. For this referendum, the voter turnout for the 16- and 17-year-olds was 75%; for the 18 to 24-year-olds, 54%; and for the 25 to 34-year-olds, 72%. The research by Hübner and Eichhorn presented at the Vote16 summit demonstrated the success of the pilot project, and an increase in public support for youth voting rights from 30% to 60%. Scotland has now established a voting age of 16 permanently for all Scottish elections.

Researchers have also noted increased democratic engagement with the lower voting age, something we could all wish for. The passion and eloquence of the young people during the recent summit — and most especially the participating Yukoners, Juliette Belisle Greetham and Keegan Newnham-Boyd — were truly inspiring.

Thank you, Senator McPhedran, for your dedication to this bill and the commitment to the young people of Canada.

Honourable senators, there is so much more information that is entirely worthy of study at committee. Recently, I was reminded by someone who went to junior high school with me about her memory of my active involvement and that I was rather outspoken in school. I was sporting a button, she said, and I honestly can’t remember what the cause was, but that big button said, “Why not?” Truly remember that in this particular debate, honourable senators: Why not? Why not send this bill at second reading to committee so that we can look at the evidence, some of which I’ve noted? But most importantly let’s hear from young people. Let’s hear from these voices and from Canadians.

Colleagues may be aware that I served for a time on the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women. A 1992 report on young women that I had some involvement with was entitled, We’re here, listen to us! A survey of young women in Canada. Let’s listen to all the young Canadian people.

Colleagues, I ask for your support for Bill S-201 at second reading. I encourage you to send it to committee for further study when the question is asked. Thank you. Mahsi’cho.

Would Senator Duncan take a question?

Certainly.

Thank you. I very much appreciated your reference to the situation in Scotland as one of the most recent countries. As you know, Austria lowered the voting age at all levels to 16 in 2007. That’s where a lot of the very positive research comes from on a longitudinal basis.

My question is about the leader of the Conservatives in Scotland and whether you were aware of the fact that the leader changed her position on this very publicly and also made a statement, again very publicly, that her experience of the voting at 16 in Scotland was, to quote her, “ . . . entirely positive.”

Thank you for that, Senator McPhedran. No, I was not aware. As you are aware, however, Scotland has also provided us with other leading examples of fine pieces of legislation and initiatives in terms of the free period products, which I note the Government of Canada has now adopted in all federal buildings. Thank you for your question.

I’m not planning on making a long speech. I’ll focus on three points to contribute to the debate and state my position on the record.

Senator McPhedran, I thank you for introducing that bill. This is not the first time; you have introduced it a few times before. The current bill before us is Bill S-201. It was introduced on November 24, 2021.

I agree that bills must come, at one point, to a vote. Today, I will speak to say why, when the time comes to vote, we should vote no to this bill.

I agree that bills coming from the House of Commons should also be voted on, especially because they went through three readings at the other place and they deserve to be considered by us, the non-elected, because they are coming from elected officials. That being said, as you may know, similar bills have been introduced in the other place nine times so far. None made it.

As a matter of fact, the latest version was Bill C-210. That was defeated in the House of Commons on September 28, 2022. The members of Parliament who voted in favour of the bill were 77; those that voted against the bill were 246. That’s not very close.

Senator Tannas, in a previous speech, referred to the question of whether it is a good use of parliamentary time to engage in this debate, to send it to committee, further to a third reading and then send it back to the House of Commons to consider something that they have refused to do. They have refused very clearly — 246 to 77.

This is a very good question that Senator Tannas has asked, but I want to go further because I share the answer he provided at the time that, no, it would not be a good use of our parliamentary time.

I will go to the most fundamental issues here: What is the age of wisdom? What is the age which is proper for voting?

It’s an important question. What age is the age of wisdom, of reason, of understanding and of rational thought? If we look at the Bible’s teachings, there are many variations.

Take the example of our health care systems. In Quebec, a 14‑year-old can see a doctor and undergo surgery, because their consent is considered perfectly valid, since it was given by someone who understands their situation and who is capable of making decisions about treatments, including treatments that, if refused, could lead to death.

I don’t know what age is the age of reason, the appropriate age, but it’s a choice that societies must make. For health care purposes, we have decided that 14 is the age of capacity. To vote, it’s age 18. In the United States, a person has to be 21 to drink alcohol, but they can vote at age 18 and carry firearms at age 16.

Sometimes, the age of reason depends on the activity involved. I’m not sure that a 16-year-old would be allowed to operate heavy machinery on a construction site. In the end, a lot of questions could be asked and a lot of explanations could be given when it comes to setting an age limit.

That said, the question is at once philosophical, practical and, above all, political, which brings me to my third point. Is the Senate, an unelected chamber, the appropriate forum for such a political question? In my opinion, this is a fundamental question.

In Canada, people participate in the electoral system through political parties. It is political parties that get elected. There may be a few independent MPs, but basically our democratic system is based on the participation of voters who vote for political parties, which put forward policy options that voters can choose from.

It’s up to the electors to vote for those parties whom they believe carry the platform that they are comfortable with. All the parties in the other place — well, it’s at least 240, so that’s probably three parties — are of the view that lowering the voting age to 16 is not such a great idea, and they are not ready to offer it to Canadians. That’s an important consideration for us.

It’s not up to us to decide what the political parties should be doing. It should be up to the political parties to decide for themselves. Since they represent Canadians, it’s up to them to test with Canadians what they want. We are an unelected chamber, and I think it’s very delicate for unelected people to decide what is good for elected people and who should be the elected people.

In a democracy, it should be the reverse: It’s up to the elected people to decide who should be the unelected people and how to select these unelected people. For me, the issue belongs squarely and solely with the House of Commons. It’s up to them to initiate this type of important reform. I’m not saying this is bad reform. I’m just saying that we’re the wrong place. If you want to run for that issue, you are elected and you push it forward, or you work in a political party and you convince that party to move forward with that issue. But for us — the non-elected people, the wise people, the council of the elders — to decide what is good for democracy, I would prefer to leave it to those who are running and being elected.

For these reasons, colleagues, when it comes to voting on this bill, I invite you to vote it down. We should also not hesitate — not because we have no respect for the sponsor of the bill — to say, “Let’s send it to committee; we will study it.” Then, if we let the committee look at it, they will say, “Maybe it’s not so good, but it’s a good person, so we’re going to do a report, and push it to third reading.” We should not do this. We come here to do an important duty. It’s to review bills and put forward things that are worth being pushed forward. For other things that don’t work, we should not push those forward. I am for a vote on this bill, but I will say no. It doesn’t belong to us, and we should put an end to that story and move on with another bill. Thank you.

Senator Dalphond, will you accept a question?

Of course.

Thank you. Part of your speech focused on the elected chamber and its right to be dominant in consideration of issues around democracy and democratic process.

I happen to agree with you that there should be deference to the House of Commons. That’s something I’ve said many times. I do want to point out, however, that there are issues that relate to fundamental rights, and whether they are Charter rights or not, which we consider in this chamber, even if it’s initiated in this chamber.

For example, while it’s not a piece of legislation, there is a motion before us by one of your colleagues with respect to this chamber’s consideration of the use of the notwithstanding clause, and what that might mean to our deliberations in the future. Do you object to that as well because that, in fact, deals even more fundamentally, in some ways, with protecting the democratic and Charter rights of Canadians?

Thank you for the question, Senator Lankin. Are you referring to the motion which is on the Order Paper as a pre-notice of Senator Harder? If so, we will have plenty of time to debate it once it’s moved from the pre-notice period to the debate period or the notice period, so I would be pleased to comment at that time.

One thing which is clear is that fundamental rights are protected by our Charter, but the right to vote at 16 is not protected by our Charter. No one had the court declare that it’s unconstitutional to have the voting age be 18, because it would have been tried. It was not tried. Why? It’s because 18 is considered a reasonable limit, which is necessary for exercising the right to vote.

This is not a constitutional issue. It’s a matter of policy choice, and, within the range of protected Charter rights, there are many options that are as valid as other options. It’s not because there are two options, meaning that it’s unconstitutional. Often, there are many options that are constitutional.

This issue concerning the voting age, to my understanding of the law, is not clear. It’s clear that the voting age at 18 is not unconstitutional.

Would it be unconstitutional to vote at 16? No, but where is the choice to be made? It’s in the House of Commons. Political parties engage young members to vote in their activities. For example, political parties have members at 14, and some at 16. They have youth commissions. They have conventions where the youth can vote, and even the youth can select the leader, but they won’t be able to vote at the next election for that leader whom they voted to select in their party. That’s the rules of the party.

Rights are important, but we should not confuse here what is at stake as a policy choice, and where we draw the line, and I will leave it to the political parties to be the first one to draw the line. Thank you.

Will you take a question, please, Senator Dalphond?

Yes, with pleasure, Senator McPhedran. I know I have 45 minutes. I should have thought about it.

Senator Dalphond, you have 34 minutes now.

Senator Dalphond, is it your position that there is some procedural rule that stops the Senate from initiating discussion of rights, including electoral rights? Is it your position that the Senate must not take initiative on the question of rights, particularly when the potential expansion of rights relates to populations within our country that are typically not represented in Parliament?

Thank you for this excellent question, but this is not the issue here. For example, is this place barred from having a bill that deals with foreign interference? Senator Housakos introduced a bill about that, and it’s a way where the bill was designed to protect voting rights and democratic rights. Certainly, we have a role to play in that.

What is being proposed is a bill about a topic that was fully debated in the other place — not once, but many times — and has been defeated. The political parties are telling us that we are not ready to go in that direction, so why should the Senate say to the elected officials they are wrong, that they should be looking at that issue and that we are going to study it and issue a report to try to convince them that they are wrong? I guess that’s what you are saying. You are saying to vote for it even if just to send it to the Legal Committee or another committee to study the issue.

I am not convinced that it is a good use of parliamentary resources or the Senate’s role to say, “The MPs debated that issue, and the answer they provided is that it’s clearly not a constitutional issue, but we think that it should be better because we know better, and this should entitle people to vote at 16.” I don’t think it is our role as the unelected upper chamber.

Can I ask you a question, Senator Dalphond?

Of course, Senator Saint-Germain.

Thank you. Senator Dalphond, I listened closely to what you said, and I’d like to know if I’ve grasped the gist of your argument, which is that you in no way deny that this chamber has, legally speaking, all the powers and prerogatives necessary to examine and potentially pass such a bill.

Rather, what you’re questioning is whether it’s legitimate to be studying it now, given that, as Senator Tannas pointed out, the House of Commons has studied this issue 10 times or so over the past 20 years, including in the current Parliament, without our raising the matter beforehand, because we are an independent chamber. Moreover, the House of Commons rejected just such a bill at second reading.

Do I understand correctly that you are questioning the legitimacy of taking such action under the circumstances?

Thank you, Senator Saint-Germain. I rose to speak with a few notes scribbled on a piece of paper. I may not have made myself clear, but you summarized my position very clearly. I’m not saying it would be illegitimate to do this in the Senate at some point. I’m saying that, at this point, we don’t have the legitimacy required to challenge the choice that an overwhelming majority of the elected members of the House of Commons made.

Thank you, Senator Dasko. I would like to start by saying that both of us were appointed to this chamber six years ago today, so happy birthday to you and to me.

That’s a nice way to conclude the day.

I have no debate with the legitimacy of having inquiries about that issue here. We could debate it; that would be what is being proposed here, in a sense. They say, “Let’s move to second reading, adopt it and send it to committee, just to debate it.” Fine, let’s do an inquiry. Let’s debate it if you want to do that. But to go further, to push for legislation when we know that the other place just last year said no to that by a clear majority, I think that does not contribute to the democratic debate; it challenges the decision of the other place.

If you want to do an inquiry about it, if you want to move a motion that would have the other place reconsider its views, maybe. But what we’re saying here is, “You made your decision; you decided this, but we don’t accept that decision, and we are going to adopt a bill that is trying to achieve what you have refused to do.” To me, this is not the way to go, especially on this issue, which belongs to political parties by definition, more or less. Sorry, I hope that answers a part of your question.

Would Senator Dalphond take another question?

Yes, with pleasure.

Thank you very much.

It was hard to hear Senator Tannas say that it was a waste of our time to look at this bill and this issue, but after he spoke, we made an inquiry of the Library of Parliament as to whether there had been any bills that originated in the Senate that dealt with elections. It turns out that there have been between 10 and 12 bills in the history of the Senate that dealt with elections that originated in the Senate. Were you aware of this, Senator Dalphond? If you were not, does this information in any way seem to be of interest to you?

Thank you very much. Have you checked if some of those were government bills versus private member’s bills? That’s my first question.

The second question is about the context here. As Senator Saint-Germain summarized it — better than I could have done — I’m not disputing that we have the right to initiate bills on almost all kinds of matters except bills that are financial bills, because the Constitution says that we cannot initiate this type of bills. There are other types of bills we can initiate. What I am disputing is the legitimacy to dispute the very issue of the voting age when the other place voted last year by 240-77 to say, “No, we don’t want to open that debate; we don’t want to do it.”

If the other place had passed a bill saying it is 16, would you consider that this chamber has the right to say, “No, we refuse; we will amend your bill, and it is going to be 18”? Ask yourself the question: Could we do that? I think the answer is no, because that issue belongs to the other place. If they had voted to make it 16, at the Senate we would not be in a position to say, “You got it wrong. We think the wisdom required for it is at 18; therefore, we will amend the bill to put it at 18.” I guess it goes both ways.

Would you take one more question please, Senator Dalphond?

Yes.

Thank you. Senator, both you and Senator Saint-Germain used terms like “decided” and “considered.” My question is whether you realize that — you referenced some nine bills in the House of Commons related to lowering the age of voting to 16 — when you used the term “decided,” when you used the term “considered,” did you take into consideration that only one of those bills actually reached any kind of a vote in the other place? In fact, do you include the introduction of a bill to be “consideration”?

There are about 85 bills that were introduced in this place, so, yes, there is a difference between the introduction of a bill and the consideration of a bill. Many of them have not been fully considered, and, most likely, will never be.

That being said, on September 28, 2022, that very bill was debated, voted on and negated. This is the reality, not of 10 years ago.

I know I cannot ask you any questions because I am the one that is being questioned, but I would certainly like to hear from you. If the bill that did pass in the House of Commons were for a voting age of 16, would that chamber have the legitimacy to say, “No, it should be 18”?

This item remains adjourned in the name of Senator Martin, as ordered.