Bill to Amend the Canada Elections Act and the Regulation Adapting the Canada Elections Act for the Purposes of a Referendum (voting age)
Second Reading--Debate Continued
April 27, 2023
Honourable senators, I rise to speak on Bill S-201.
Before I make my points, it is worthwhile to put a little bit of background on the record.
The bill was introduced here in this chamber on November 24, 2021. The concept — in a number of bills — has an interesting history that I think bears consideration.
The bill was introduced the last time — before this time — in the Senate in the last session. It was sent to Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for study, but the committee had no meetings because of dissolution. This is the third time — maybe the charm — that Senator McPhedran has introduced this particular bill in the Senate.
What is interesting, though, is that this bill has been introduced in the House of Commons nine times through introductions and reinstatements after prorogation, dissolution, et cetera. In all of the nine times, it has made it to second reading once. That actually happened in this session of Parliament.
The House of Commons version of this bill is called Bill C-210. On September 28, 2022, the House defeated Bill C-210 at second reading by a healthy margin, 77 for and 246 against.
Again, this is the only version of this bill that made it to second reading in nine attempts in the House. All this is to say that the House of Commons has, on nine separate occasions, made it pretty clear that they are not inclined to support this idea, including defeating the proposal at second reading in this particular Parliament with these same MPs who are there now. That is some background I thought was interesting enough to be put on the record as we considered the second reading of Bill S-201.
It is also worth reminding us all that when the Senate passes a bill at second reading, it has effectively agreed to the principle of the bill and that they wish to send it to committee for further study and scrutiny. The alternative to passing at second reading is to vote no. We always have the opportunity at second reading to vote no. That would be a signal that we don’t accept the principle of the bill.
I will read from page 131 of Senate Procedures in Practice:
Debate at second reading focuses on the principle or merits of the bill. This debate is intended to address questions such as: “Is the bill good policy?,” “Is it worth pursuing further?” and “Will it be a good law?” The general issues raised in the bill, and not the specific content of its parts and clauses. . . .
It is rare for the Senate to defeat bills at second reading, but I would submit to you, senators, that if there were ever a bill that we should consider defeating at second reading, it is this one. And I will outline my concerns.
The first one is the practicality of it. We have a limited amount of time in committees to study private members’ bills, so I question why we would spend time studying a bill on a subject that has already been defeated in the other place on this exact same topic with the exact same MPs sitting in their chairs in the House of Commons.
There is a legality question as well. If we pass this bill all the way over there, it would likely be ruled out of order, because there is a concept of something called “prior question.” You can’t ask the same question again in the same session of Parliament. So it’s at least likely that the Speaker would rule the bill out of order and we would have wasted a bunch of time — committee time, debate time — on something that the House would send back to us saying, “We have already considered this. What are you doing?”
Third is the principle. I believe the subject matter of this bill is not one that the Senate should be initiating. It deals with elections to the House of Commons, and we should reserve ourselves to sober second thought on matters that pertain to federal elections. It is, in my mind, disrespectful for the Senate to proactively seek change to election processes for members of Parliament, but that’s my opinion.
Again, given that the very elected colleagues who populate the House of Commons right now have recently rejected this proposal by an overwhelming majority, I think they would question our respect as well.
Colleagues, it gives me no pleasure to present such a negative position on a bill proposed by one of our honourable senators, but there are situations, I think, where we as a Senate need to take some decisive action on matters like this. I know that Senator McPhedran would like to see this bill come to a vote. In fact, she has been asking, through scrolls, over the past number of months as to when we might be ready to vote on the bill. I am ready to vote no on this bill whenever it pleases the Senate to call the question, including today. Thank you.
Would you take a question, Senator Tannas?
I would.
Thank you very much. There is currently no same bill in the Senate. Did you think about the fact that a number of comments on different bills in this chamber recently have been about the importance of the independence of the Senate to be able to have its discussions, to conduct its studies as senators see fit and not to be dictated by what’s happening in the other place — I shouldn’t say “dictated” but unnecessarily influenced by what’s happening in the other place?
I am trying to understand why you would emphasize that here when I think in the past I’ve heard you argue strongly for the independence of the Senate.
A corollary to that question is this: How is it you think it’s a good idea for the Senate not to listen to the young people who want to come and be heard by us as part of second reading? Why would we shut them down? Why would we shut them out?
Those are very good questions. There is not a similar bill like this in the Senate, as you mentioned. There isn’t one in the House of Commons because they defeated it, so it has been tossed.
Again, the principles that brought me to my position were, first, what the success chance is. I think it is zero. I think we are wasting our time with the bill. There may be some merit in having young people come to a committee and talk about it. We could do that with a study. We could perhaps put out a document that the House of Commons could read and maybe reconsider.
But we also have the issue of this prior question. We could get it all the way over there, spend all the committee time, listen to all these folks, raise their hopes that this bill will be passed and just have it dismissed. That’s the likely outcome. The prior question is something that’s pretty clear.
Third, we have a limited amount of time where the committees can do their work. And we’re running out of time, I suggest, certainly in this session of Parliament. Maybe there will be prorogation. Maybe there will be an election. Who knows? But we are all getting a sense that we are running out of time in this Parliament.
I think we have to be mindful of what we spend our time on. It is for those reasons that I am making the recommendation.
I have a question. How can this be considered the same question if this question has not yet been raised in the Senate Chamber? Given that the Commons is where this matter has been raised and not here, are you concerned that the Senate applying a procedural tactic that should be determined by the House of Commons in the event this bill makes it there would cause a dangerous precedent and interfere with the jurisdictional boundaries that stipulate that each chamber is the master of their own domain?
Thank you for the question, Senator McCallum. I’m not arguing that there is anything other than common sense preventing us from pressing ahead. We could pass this bill through second reading. We could consider it at third. Let’s say we pass it; that does not get the bill passed.
So if it is an academic exercise to go through, if that’s what the idea is, I suggest we do a committee study rather than a bill that will be dead on arrival in the House of Commons.
Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at second reading of 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 would like to thank Senator McPhedran for bringing this initiative forward and for her tireless work and advocacy on this file. I would like to begin with a quote from Ms. Diane Redsky, a citizen of Shoal Lake 40 First Nation and recipient of an honourary law degree from the University of Winnipeg, 2022.
In reflecting on this legislation, Ms. Redsky states:
In Grade 4 I received an award on a speech I presented: “why children should have the right to vote.’ I was already recognizing at this young age the inequality that exists where decisions affecting my future were being made without my voice and I felt strongly that this was wrong. I still believe youth must have a say in decisions that impact their future. Our Elders are always reminding us, responsible and respectful decision making must factor in the seven generations ahead of us. Changing the voting age to 16 will go a long way in ensuring we are all working towards a strong and sustainable future for everyone.
Ms. Redsky recently resigned as the executive director of the Ma Mawi Wi Chi Itata Centre in Winnipeg, where she brought leadership and voice on Aboriginal issues. She is a nationally renowned visionary thinker and community leader who has long worked to address the myriad of issues facing Winnipeg’s urban Aboriginal community in all areas of health, justice, education and social services.
Since 1993, she has served in both a professional and volunteer capacity, working within the social services sector. She has become a strong advocate for Aboriginal, children’s and women’s issues. She has helped create numerous and innovative programs that have helped build healthy communities.
Colleagues, Ms. Redsky — this distinguished, passionate and caring woman — is the same person as that determined youth who wanted to vote at the age of 14 so she could bring voice to the inequalities that she experienced. Imagine the positive evolution our society would experience if our youth were allowed the right to a vote, bringing with them clear eyes and a fresh perspective. This movement would represent, as Senator McPhedran said in her initial speech, “. . . the revitalization of our democracy.”
Honourable senators, speaking from the perspective of a Cree iskwêw, a woman, this bill enables our youth to voice concerns about the future of their world, expressed with intelligence and critical thinking. This would be the culmination of their request to be involved in our democratic system.
For those of you who have participated in the round table forums Senator McPhedran has organized on this legislation, you will know the respect and diligence with which the youth approach this possibility. During their advocacy week, Indigenous youth reached out to parliamentarians and highlighted priorities that they would like to raise to government, and the common issues were mental health and wellness; water, land and energy; access to culturally safe, quality education and Indigenous sovereignty and cultural revitalization.
These youth were articulate in voicing the concerns that impact their lives. They viewed their work as a serious responsibility and privilege, and they did, unquestionably, say that they had a stake in their communities, their country and in this planet.
Colleagues, in 1991, the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing studied the question of lowering the voting age to 16. Reasons to support a change included avoiding age discrimination under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and encouraging youth while young people were still in school and could take part in civic education.
In 1991, the commission carried out public opinion surveys on lowering the voting age and found that most Canadians, including teens, did not support lowering the voting age. The commission suggested that the question of voting age be reconsidered from time to time as society changes.
Society has now changed to the extent that youth and adults are very concerned about their future, and rightly so. The time is now to once again revisit lowering the voting age.
Colleagues, Canadians have spent their lives in the most prosperous and privileged place on earth. In his book Thinking like a Mountain, Robert Bateman states, at page 32, that:
To act nobly is most certainly to make good decisions for our grandchildren’s futures, yet many of us seem to have forgotten how to think this way. There is a traditional North American Native saying that could help us all: ‘We must plan our path not just for this generation and the next but for seven generations to come . . . .’ Does this sound impossible in a time when stock market traders plan for the next few seconds, corporate CEOs manage primarily for short-term profit and politicians can’t seem to see beyond the next election?
He continues:
But the questions on the other side are stronger: Can we possibly continue to live as we do, spending the Earth’s resources as if there is no tomorrow? Will our species survive a continuing onslaught of its own overconsumption?
The youth, over these past many years, have been voicing concerns about the state of Mother Earth, a reality we have arrived at through adult-driven decisions. It is time we work with our youth, those who will inherit this world.
In an article entitled “Voting Age Challenge Update,” published in the April 2021 newsletter of the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights, author Sara Nematallah writes:
In November of 2019, the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights and Justice for Children and Youth, in partnership with other child rights organizations, initiated efforts to challenge the minimum voting age for federal elections set by the Canada Elections Act, SC 2000, c. 9. . . .
The David Asper Centre is using the 2019 Frank v. Canada court case for arguing the unconstitutionality of the current voting age. They concluded that:
Since voting is a fundamental political right, and the right to vote is a core tenet of Canadian democracy, any limit on the right to vote must be carefully scrutinized and cannot be tolerated without a compelling justification.
In the David Asper Centre newsletter, experts from the fields of political theory, international law, cognitive sciences and social sciences supported the challenge that:
. . . theoretical writings, sociological studies and scientific studies produced by these experts dispel many of the misconceptions around youth voting — most notably the myth that youths under the age of 18 do not have the cognitive capacity to vote, and the myth that allowing young people to vote harms democracy by enabling uninformed and uninterested youths to participate in the democratic process. . . . psychological and cognitive social science studies from the last decade demonstrate that youths as young as 14 develop adult-level complex reasoning skills that enable them to make voting decisions of the same quality as adults, and international jurisdictions where voting ages have been lowered below 18 have reported that youths are an engaged and informed voting group and that their inclusion has produced no negative effects on democracy. While these experts approach the issue of voting ages from a variety of different angles, they generally align on the view that using the age of 18 as a proxy for democratic competency is arbitrary and cannot be justified by what we currently know about youth decision making.
Colleagues, we must embrace the fact that there is no compelling justification that exists to continue to subvert the voices of youth. Instead, we must listen to them and support them in becoming thriving global citizens by knowing that they have the capacity to succeed and supporting their growth in becoming politically active. We can do so by supporting Bill S-201.
Let us also remember the issue of mature minors and their ability to make life-and-death decisions that we know is coming; they are allowed to make life-and-death decisions, but they are not allowed to vote.
Honourable senators, I am privileged to share the words said to me in 2015, before I became a senator, by students in three Grade 6 classrooms at Bruce Middle School in the Winnipeg School Division. They had invited me to speak to them about residential schools, and they had completed an initiative called Project of Heart.
In one of the classrooms, one group made an inukshuk from their tiles, and the young boy who was the spokesperson said to me:
We chose the inukshuk because it is a sign that shows the way. We chose colours to go with the values. The arms are red because it signifies courage and caring. The legs are blue because blue represents peace because you cannot lead without peace.
The last boy to speak that day said:
I can’t leave without sharing my work with you. My tile is about yin and yang. Life is about balance, and we have both negative and positive experiences. We learn to accept this reality and we learn from both because even the negative experiences have much to teach us.
These students are probably in university now, but I would say that they had long been preparing themselves to be socially responsible citizens.
Colleagues, our youth have been told countless times that they are the leaders of tomorrow, that they are our future. Let us not be afraid to back up these platitudes with concrete action, lest we simply be paying them lip service. If we are to take seriously our role of representing the marginalized and the voiceless, we must challenge ourselves to act now. Whether or not we are comfortable to admit it, we must acknowledge that our youth are amongst those voiceless citizens whom we must be diligent in representing. What better and more meaningful way to do so than support an initiative that compels them to become civically engaged and active Canadians exercising the right to have a say in their lives and their futures?
Let us create space to hear from youth and experts by referring this bill to committee. The intent now is to use this moment of age discrimination as a springboard from which we can actualize understanding, respect, equity, diversity, inclusion and reconciliation of and with our youth. Kinanâskomitin, thank you.
