Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Bill S-209, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Regulation Adapting the Canada Elections Act for the Purposes of a Referendum (voting age).

Colleagues, I have been following this debate and I want to say at the outset that I appreciate Senator McPhedran’s dedication to this cause. I know she believes deeply in this and has worked tirelessly to make her case in this chamber.

I would also like to say that I share her view that our youth have much to offer and are not just leaders of tomorrow; they have a significant contribution to make today. Many of them have already found their voices and are engaging in important public discussions and making valuable contributions to public debates. The perspectives and views of our young people are important and their voices should be heard. We gain absolutely nothing by diminishing them.

I also believe in our youth being involved in politics and political campaigns. I was a member of the Conservative Party at a young age and was only 15 years old when I volunteered for the first time in an election campaign as a scrutineer for long-time member of Parliament the Honourable Jake Epp. My dad got me involved in that campaign and subsequent campaigns. These were formative experiences for me, and through them I developed a keen interest in politics and public service.

However, colleagues, in spite of my support for our young people and my clear recognition of the valuable contributions they make, this is not the equivalent of saying they should have all the rights and responsibilities that currently belong to adults who are the age of majority.

We have many things that are restricted by age and I would note that all of those restrictions have been determined by the democratic process, which is controlled by those who are of voting age.

If we reduce the voting age from 18 to 16, how can we prohibit 16-year-olds from also purchasing alcohol, tobacco and cannabis? What about firearms? What about gambling? If you’re old enough to decide who should be the Prime Minister of Canada, aren’t you old enough to do all of these things as well?

What about running for public office? If you can vote in an election, shouldn’t you be able to run in an election? Do we believe that all 16-year-olds are ready to shoulder the weight and responsibilities that come with public office?

What about viewing a restricted movie or getting married without parental permission? Are we going to allow 16-year-olds to sue and be sued in their own name? Are we going to allow them to enter into binding contracts? These are all things that are currently restricted by age, and for very good reasons. But if we change the voting age to 16, there is no logical rationale for preventing those same Canadians from participating in the very things they are now old enough to vote on.

Colleagues, my primary concern with this legislation is that it has originated in the wrong chamber. We are an appointed chamber and it is my firm belief that it is not our place to initiate legislation that predominantly impacts the other place.

Senator Wells made this point very effectively in his speech, and I agree with him wholeheartedly when he said, “We must leave the elections up to the elected chamber.” Elections directly determine who will fill the seats in the other place. As the elected house, they are the ones who should initiate any necessary changes to that process, including who qualifies as an elector.

If they choose to initiate such legislation, then we will have an important role in reviewing it and recommending improvements. But until that time, I believe it is a breach of due process to initiate such a bill in this chamber.

Colleagues, I have said many times that even when I am not in favour of a particular bill, I still support it going to committee for further study.

This bill, colleagues, I think, is an exception. Legislation that changes the electoral process is not the business of this chamber. It is the democratically elected body that should initiate changes to the democratic process.

I am opposed to this bill in principle and, quite frankly, do not believe it should continue any further. Colleagues, I did contemplate asking for a standing vote, simply to register my difficulties with this bill. However, I think we have spent enough time needlessly voting tonight. I will simply allow this bill to be referred to committee. As far as I am concerned, we will be passing this bill on division. There may be those who want a standing vote, but we will not be calling for one. We are prepared to allow this bill to go to committee for further study.