44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 23, 2022 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, we are really glad to see the Liberals finally get on board with doubling the GST tax credit to help 11 million Canadians, something the NDP has been pushing hard for, but one thing we believe is that we need to go much further. We have seen oil and gas companies with record profits. Banks have record profits. Grocery store chains have record profits. Telecom and wireless companies have record profits. Fees on consumers are going up in all of those sectors.
We saw the Conservatives in Great Britain create an excess profit tax of 25% on big oil. We would never see that from the Conservatives here, because they are the lobbyists for the oil and gas companies.
Does my colleague believe we need to do more? I see the 1.5% increase on big banks and excess profit, but the Liberals are letting oil and gas off the hook. They are letting the big grocery store chains off the hook. They are letting wireless operators off the hook. Greedflation is taking over. Does my colleague agree that more needs to be done here?
187 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the benefit of being here a long time is that this seems to be a go-to position of my friends on the left.
There is an excess profits tax. All of these companies the member is complaining about, if they fall within the band of excess profits, will be taxed directly for that. I take note, as he did, of the excess profits tax for banks and insurance companies. There will be a gathering of revenues. I also take note that lately, primarily because of the low unemployment rate, the government's revenues have been quite robust, again speaking to the point that the government's management of its finances has been quite exemplary.
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I have not been a member of the House for very long, but I am sure that if I had been, I would have been happy to have the member around for a long time with me.
I have a question about the timing of the introduction of Bill C-30. It is a relatively simple bill that is quite easy to implement. We already knew when the budget was tabled in the spring that inflation was going to be an issue.
Could this bill have been introduced earlier and provided help sooner to people who are struggling right now because of inflation?
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, of course it could have been tabled earlier. Whether that would have been a wise tabling, I do not really know.
This is part of an array of initiatives on the part of the Government of Canada to mitigate the complaints we are all hearing. There is not a member in this House who has not heard about the inflationary pressures on our constituents, so as part of an entire array, I think this bill is a worthy initiative. The fiscal policy is being handled as well as it can be handled, with maybe a slow start on monetary policy. I still think the Bank of Canada is moving forward on that front as well.
When taken together, the array of measures and initiatives on the part of the government writ large is an appropriate response to a worldwide phenomenon on a relatively small economy, and hopefully—
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/23/22 1:01:52 p.m.
- Watch
I hate to cut off the hon. member but we are out of time.
Continuing debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to join the debate on Bill C-30, the cost of living relief act.
I have to say this is something that I know people in my community want to see. After a summer of having conversations with people back home in the community about what their needs are and what they are seeing, this is a chance to show that we are here and that we are responding to what their needs are in a very real way.
Inflation is a global phenomenon. We have heard this said a few times today. It is driven in large part by the lasting impacts of the pandemic. It has been amplified by China's COVID zero policies. It has also been amplified by Russia's invasion of Ukraine. We can say all that, but I also agree with what the member for Scarborough—Guildwood said, that those may be the causes, but people want to see action. This is where we get to say that we are taking that action to provide people with support.
Just so we have the backdrop, inflation at the moment is at about 7%. It is less than that of many of our peers, such as the United States, which is at 8.3%, the United Kingdom at 9.9% and Germany at 7.9%, but it still has a bite. Those are the numbers. It is still having a bite.
That is why our government now has the affordability plan, which is a suite of measures. It is new support here for 2022. It includes doubling the GST credit for six months. That is just one measure that is going to be able to make life more affordable for millions of Canadians. I will talk a little bit more about it as we go forward, but I want to also talk a bit about some of the backdrop to the work that we are doing generally. That is really important.
When I was first elected, one of the big pieces that I said I wanted to tackle was income inequality. I said it was something that was very important. I heard that. People in my community were raising it. We were talking about the additional measures that are happening today because of inflation. It builds on a suite of measures that we have been putting in place to build a stronger safety net. That is really important.
Among some of the things we talk about is the Canada child benefit. Originally, the same size of cheque went to anyone who had children. It had very limited impact. There were people who were really wealthy who were receiving it. People in need were not receiving the extra help that they needed.
I talk with people in my community about the Canada child benefit all the time. They tell me that it had an impact, because now it is means-tested, which means that people who have a greater need receive more money and the people who do not need that help do not receive it. That is okay, though, because they know that other people who are in great need in our community are getting that extra support. It puts thousands of dollars in the pockets of people to help feed their families.
In fact, studies in Toronto showed that it had a very real impact on food insecurity in families, that it was reducing food insecurity by significant numbers. It also had an impact, by Statistics Canada standards, on reducing poverty for children.
One of the other things that I was really excited about and wanted to accomplish when we were here was child care. Let us talk about raising a family. My kids are older teens now, but I had to put their names on a wait-list for day care before they were even born to get a spot in Toronto. By the way, that is still very much the case in Toronto. The cost was tremendous. People have to make a real decision about whether they can afford to have a child, whether they can afford to work. It has a disproportionate impact on women.
The newest pieces that we have heard over the past year from our government, with the agreements we have reached with all of the provinces and territories for a national child care plan, are part of that safety network. This means that more people are able to work, which is part of the issue when we are talking about inflation and the like. We are also talking about labour shortages being another challenge in there. Allowing more people to have access to work helps with the labour shortages.
I will go back to the bill a little more here. We know that no single country can solve all of the global problems that we have been talking about that are driving higher prices, but we are taking tangible steps to get inflation under control here in Canada, to make life more affordable for Canadians.
I want to recognize the central role of the Bank of Canada in addressing inflation. For more than three decades, it has been the bank's responsibility to tackle inflation here in Canada. Our government reaffirmed that central mandate last December. The bank has begun its work to bring inflation back to the target and we have seen that with the monetary decisions that have been made.
The Bank of Canada and private sector economists now expect inflation to ease toward 2%, which is the target over the next two years. That is where we are going, but we have this piece we are in right now. This bill is about where we are right now.
I want to talk about the affordability plans, like doubling the GST credit, which will support Canadians with the rising cost of living. This is a plan that is still very targeted. It is a fiscally responsible financial support for the Canadians who need it most. There is a particular emphasis on addressing the needs of Canadians with low incomes who are most exposed to inflation. It is also a way of making sure it has fiscal responsibility to it. This is not a blank cheque. This is a targeted means of supporting people who have the greatest needs.
What does this plan mean for Canadians this year? It means the doubling of the GST credit for six months. This would provide about $2.5 billion in additional targeted support this year to the roughly 11 million individuals and families who already receive the tax credit, including about half of Canadian families with children and more than half of Canadian seniors.
It also means enhancing the Canada workers benefit to put up to an additional $2,400 into the pockets of families with low income starting this year. It means a 10% increase to old age security for seniors over 75 that began in July, which is providing up to $766 more for more than three million seniors this year.
It also means a $500 payment this year to 1.8 million Canadian renters who are struggling with the cost of housing through a one-time top-up through the Canada housing benefit. That is particularly important in a place like Toronto, where I live. Rent is tremendously expensive and having that extra support to put toward rent will have real tangible outcomes for people in my community.
I talked a bit about the child care fees and the child care plan. This is of personal interest to me. The long-term plan is to get to $10-a-day day care. This year, Canadians are going to see their child care fees reduced by 50% by the end of this year. That is a huge help for people living in communities like mine.
Additionally, the affordability plan includes dental care for Canadians earning less than $90,000 starting this year with hundreds of thousands of children under the age of 12. We know that dental care is a really important part of health care. I am really proud that we are going to be able to deliver that.
There is also the indexation to inflation of benefits like the Canada child benefit, which I talked about earlier. The fact that it is indexed means that each July, people will see an increase to their Canada child benefit. When I talked with anti-poverty advocates, that is one of the things they asked for. They wanted to make sure it was indexed so it would take into account the rising cost of living. That is something else that will help.
There are also increases to the guaranteed income supplement. Another thing that was requested in my community, and we are really excited to be able to deliver on it, is a federal minimum wage of $15 indexed to inflation, which makes it now $15.55 an hour.
I want to make sure that the message is out there that we recognize this is a difficult time and we are taking effective measures to support Canadians. More than that, this is not the only time we have done this. We have been there throughout and we are going to keep working to make sure there is a secure safety net that supports Canadians through all times.
1569 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we know that the government's revenues have been inflated by this inflationary environment and now the government is saying it will be returning some of the excess government revenues to taxpayers through these measures. However, I am very concerned that the underlying problem is not being dealt with here, the underlying problem being high inflation rates.
Can the member tell this House what exactly the government intends to do to help the Bank of Canada achieve its 2% inflation rate, or is it just hoping that the Bank of Canada can keep hiking interest rates and solve this problem all on its own?
106 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, first of all, let us not underplay the role of the Bank of Canada in all of this. It has an important role in what it is doing, but I recognize that is not the only thing. We are working on other measures. For example, I mentioned at one point in my speech that we are working on things like helping to address labour shortages, which can be part of the challenge with supply chains. We see that with the supports that we have in skills development, but also in immigration.
There are definitely places where government plays a role in tandem with the work that is being done independently by the Bank of Canada.
117 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I wish to say hello to the parliamentary secretary and thank her for her speech.
Her speech focused on inflation. In fact, Bill C-30 is a response to inflation. How will her government support developing countries that are dealing with serious inflation problems?
They are facing a food shortage and an energy crisis. International institutions encouraged these countries to take on massive debt to get through the pandemic. Their loans are for the most part in U.S. dollars, and the dollar's value is soaring at present because it serves as a safe haven. The same goes for imports, including food imports, which are negotiated in U.S. dollars. These countries are facing a real catastrophe, and there could be a cascade of bankruptcies.
What does her government plan to do to support them?
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for this question, which touches on an important subject.
Today I talked about what we are doing in Canada, because this is a bill for Canadians. That is why I focused on that in my speech, but we certainly have a role to play internationally.
For example, during the pandemic, we helped other countries get access to vaccines. We continue to help other countries that need it. We come together when we work together, and we are stronger when we work together. We certainly have a role to play in that. Today I really wanted to talk about this bill and what we are doing here in Canada, but it is indeed another issue that we need to focus on as well.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, New Democrats are excited that we are finally getting relief to Canadians. For a long time we have been calling for the doubling of the GST credit and for a dental program so that children, seniors and families earning less than $90,000 get the help they need. People are having a difficult time paying their rent.
We hear the Conservatives constantly say that these programs are going to drive up inflation. In fact, economists are saying that this is going to have a very negligible impact actually when it comes to inflation and that these are the right measures to bring forward to help Canadians, something that New Democrats have been bringing forward.
I find it really ironic that it sounds like the Conservatives support the doubling of the GST credit now and somehow they believe that it would not now impact inflation. Does my colleague not find it quite bizarre that the Conservatives pick and choose when programs that help Canadians impact inflation?
167 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting way to frame the question. I will say that we have been very much focused on the people in our communities and across the country on how to provide them with support. That is why it can be extremely disappointing when we see Conservatives vote quite regularly against measures that do help Canadians, like cutting taxes for the middle class, like the Canada child benefit which I mentioned.
I will take this as an olive branch moment. It is wonderful that the Conservatives seem to be supportive of what we are doing right now with the GST credit. I am hopeful they will be convinced that this is the right path for many more things that we are taking on.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure and an honour to rise in this House on behalf of my constituents in Calgary Midnapore.
Before I begin my remarks on Bill C-30, I would like to send my dearest regards to our good friends and fellow Canadians across Atlantic Canada and eastern Quebec. Now is the moment to prepare as the storm approaches. My thoughts and prayers are with our fellow Canadians in Atlantic Canada and in eastern Quebec.
No doubt, the GST rebate will provide some welcome relief, which Conservatives will support, but ultimately, fundamentally, this will not address the real problem. Inflationary deficits and taxes are driving up costs at the fastest rates in nearly 40 years. My goodness, that is almost as long as I have been on earth, and I will not give my age here, but it is certainly a long time.
I would say that, for longer than two years, Conservatives and our new leader, the member for Carleton, have tried as best as they could to warn the Prime Minister about the consequences of his actions and how much they hurt Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and the coasts are important to remember as we remark upon the events of today. Conservatives have called on the government to cancel all planned tax increases, including the payroll tax hikes planned for January 1, and as the shadow minister for employment, this piece is particularly important to me, along with the tax hikes on gas, groceries and home heating scheduled for April 1.
Another tax that has been an incredible burden on Canadians has been the carbon tax. If the Prime Minister was, in fact, serious about making life more affordable for workers, families and seniors, he would cancel the carbon tax immediately. These taxes are coming at the worst possible time for Canadian families who are already struggling with rising costs due to the Prime Minister's inflation. Instead of freezing taxes, the Prime Minister is raising them on people who are already struggling to make ends meet.
This credit will be a one-time help of $467, which, as I said, we welcome as a small piece of relief for families, but we must contrast that with the fact that the average family of four is now spending over $1,200 more a year to put food on the table, not to mention the rising costs of heat, gasoline and rent.
Grocery prices are up by 10.8%, rising at the fastest pace in 40 years. Fish is up by 10.4%, and perhaps it will be more after the dreadful weekend ahead of us. Butter is up 16.9%. Eggs are up 10.9%, and margarine is up by 37.5%. Bread, rolls and buns are up by 17.6%. Dry or fresh pasta is up by 32.4%. Fresh fruit is up by 13.2%. Oranges are up by 18.5%, and apples are up by 11.8%. Coffee is up by 14.2%. Soup is up by 19.6%. Lettuce is up by 12.4%, and potatoes, which will perhaps increase more after this weekend, are up by 10.9%.
Individuals without children who earn more than $49,200 and a family of four or a couple with two children who earn more than $58,500 will receive no benefits, yet these food prices will not change for them. The amount of the inflationary increases they will have to pay on their items will remain the same.
This will impact small businesses. I come from a small business family, so this issue is especially dear to me. Small business insolvencies, I am sure members know, are on the rise, and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business reported that owners of one in six businesses are considering closing their doors, with 62% of small businesses still carrying debt from the pandemic. The Liberals have created a risky environment for small business, and small businesses cannot afford to do business with these upcoming tax hikes, rising debt costs and staggering inflation numbers. Again, if the government is serious about small businesses surviving, recovering and growing in Canada, then it should immediately cancel all of the tax hikes that impact small businesses.
Members should not take my word for it. Many economists are talking about the Prime Minister's inflation bill. I will add that these are individuals from very credible institutions. I know that the government across the way certainly likes to turn up its nose at some Conservative-friendly institutes, such as the Fraser Institute. I heard snickering today. However, the Liberals cannot argue with these sources. One individual said:
It's always good to help people in need.
The problem is, what does that do for everyone else and does it really help [those on low incomes] to begin with? If we have high inflation and that high inflation continues, that assistance is not going to do very much to help anyone, including the recipients of that assistance. It is just not going to be enough, and while the Bank of Canada is doing quite a bit to bring down inflation [through increasing interest rates], the government really has not done much of anything.
I am sure the government would like to think it was the Fraser Institute that said that, but it was Professor Pavlov of Simon Fraser University, a very well-known university, known to not always have Conservative opinions. Therefore, we are certainly not alone in our criticism of how little, or how “much of anything”, to quote Professor Pavlov, the government has done in an effort to fight inflation.
Another professor from Simon Fraser University, Professor Herrenbrueck, said, “If you're asking will this put further pressure on inflation, I would say probably yes, it would have to”. That is again not a glowing recommendation of the government's action on inflation from professors from a very well-known university, which does not necessarily have a Conservative point of view.
I have another quote:
While there are times where fiscal largesse is just what the economy needs, these aren't such times. In a period of high inflation and excess demand, cutting taxes or handing out cheques can add fuel to the inflationary fire, and make the job of a central bank that's raising rates to cool demand all that more troublesome.
That quote was from the chief economist at CIBC. How can we argue against the chief economist of the CIBC? It would be almost impossible.
Here is another quote and, I would say, our support of this part of the bill follows in suit with this comment: “We’re not going to deny that there are households seriously in need of help right now in this inflationary environment. But, from a policy perspective, we all know that sending out money as an inflation-support measure is inherently … inflationary.”
This is once again something our leader, the member for Carleton, has attempted to point out to the government on numerous occasions. That quote is from Robert Kavcic, the senior economist at the Bank of Montreal.
I have one final quote, which says, “it seems sensible to assume that this will add to pressures on measures of core inflation.... Any belief that it will ease inflationary pressures must have studied different economics textbooks.”
I would certainly say we are not all singing from the same songbook here when it comes to addressing the Canadian economy and inflation. That quote, to round out my quotes, is from Derek Holt, the vice-president and head of capital markets economics at Scotiabank.
We have three major banks here, CIBC, Bank of Montreal and Scotiabank, all indicating that the government has not done enough to stop inflationary measures for Canadians, which I outlined extensively with my food list and the way this is impacting people.
The average family of four is now spending over $1,200 more each year just to put food on the table. I am a mom. I go grocery shopping. I see the prices in the grocery stores. I am even hesitant to think about how my family will budget for them. I am a very fortunate mother in a very fortunate family, so I worry for my constituents and I worry for Canadians.
Grocery prices are up by 10.8%, the highest rate since 1981. Across the board, food prices are up by 9.8%. As I said, while Conservatives welcome this much-needed support, this one-time cheque of $467 for families of four eligible for the benefit covers less than 40% of Trudeau's inflation at the grocery store alone and does not begin to cover the rising cost of heat, just as winter is coming, gasoline and rent.
More than 70% of families with children would not receive this support. Again, individuals without children earning more than $49,200, families of four earning more than $58,500 or couples with two children would receive no benefits.
In closing, we have had enough of the band-aids. This economy, this country, is on life support. We need solutions. Right now, all we have is this sad bill and “Justinflation”.
1551 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make a link between the high prices we see in the grocery store and the climate crisis.
Moms noticed this summer that ice cream went up, and one of the reasons was that vanilla beans come from Madagascar, which was hit with six cyclones this year. Hurricane Fiona is on its way to the Maritimes, which we have mentioned multiple times, and we are all thinking of people in the Maritimes.
I am originally a Cape Bretoner. We never had hurricanes in Nova Scotia until climate change. In 2003, for the first time, hurricane Juan made landfall as a full-force hurricane because the water had warmed up south of Nova Scotia. We had had hurricanes in the past, but they had cooled down before they hit Nova Scotia because the water was cooler.
There is a connection to what we are doing in burning fossil fuels. It is driving up prices in our grocery store and making us less safe in our homes.
169 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I, like my leader and my Conservative colleagues, have a concern for the environment, without question. However, in this moment, we must think of our priorities. If people cannot eat, they cannot recycle.
35 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to be able to stand today and speak in favour of Bill S-210, which would lower the voting age to 16. I think it is a really important thing for us to be talking about today and giving support.
I thought that a good place to start would be to hand over the mike to some members of my youth council. I have a youth council. They are young people in the community who give me advice and talk with me about the issues that are important to them in the community. I asked them how they felt about this issue of reducing the voting age. We had a great discussion about it. I thought we should hear from them because we are talking about their voting rights.
Jessica said, “Adolescents at the age of 16 are at the point in their lives where they are most engaged in their communities as they are starting to get jobs, a driver's licence, and in general getting involved in society. Getting adolescents involved with voting can lead to more long-lasting participation in democratic activities throughout their life.”
Another member in my youth council, Safik, talked about it also in favour. He said, “Age isn't always a factor when you have mature teens and adults. On the flip, you have immature teens and adults who get to vote. We also have to find a way to have teens' voices respected by adults so that they can take their opinions seriously before voting. ”
Finally, the other member of my youth council who I would like to give a voice is Jona, who said, “Giving youth the vote strengthens our democracy—youth may not have the same experiences or emotional maturity as adults, but that's why our vote would be beneficial. Giving the youth a vote will offer an additional perspective, and will make voting results more well rounded. Youth have very different eyes when looking at the world, and so giving the older youth the vote will make our system a better democracy. Because after all, the point of a democracy is that everyone gets a say, but it's not everyone if we are excluding an entire demographic.”
I would like to thank the members of my youth council, because I think it was really important that they took the time to help me get ready for this debate and to share their thoughts. I believe very much, whenever I hear from them, that they have some very strong and great ideas. It would be so wonderful to have them engaged in the voting process.
I wanted to give some facts because this is not the first time that we have talked about expanding the voting age or who may vote. In fact, over time it has evolved in Canada. It has not been this static thing that the people who can vote today were the people who could vote at Confederation. Just to put it in context, this is not the first time that this kind of thing has happened. For example, in 1867, upon Confederation, only property-owning men, 20 years or older, could vote. I would say that it was not even all of the men who were eligible to vote at that point. The vote was only extended to some women in 1918. For a whole portion of our history, I would not have been able to vote, just to put that in context as we talk about the voting age and voting in general. The voting age was revised in 1970 as well.
Therefore, it is not without precedent to talk about this. As our democracy evolves, as we have different conversations that evolve, there are different measures to consider about what we can do to make sure that people are engaged and that we are hearing the voices we need to hear when making decisions as to who should be here in this place.
I think we are also, perhaps, at a turning point where it is even more important than ever to think about that. How do we engage more people in wanting to vote? There has been a downward trend in people actually showing up to vote. Certainly, in my home province of Ontario in the last election, we saw a drastic reduction in the number of people who showed up to vote.
How can we make sure that people are engaged from an early time and continue to be throughout their lives? I think in a place like my home community, a lot of the times the polling stations are actually in schools, the same place that these young people who are 16 years old are learning about civics. We walk right by them to go into their school gyms and libraries to vote. They might be having a class just down the hall about civics, but there is a bit of a disconnect. Sometimes what I hear from some young people who are just about to vote is that they actually do not know enough about the process. It is new. That might be something that holds some people back.
If it was at 16, when many of them are in school and the polling stations might be close by, that might engage a whole bunch more people to say that it is something they have seen and can relate to and as they are talking about these issues right now in class they are going to walk across and vote.
The other part I would say is that we see today, with climate strikes across our country, young people are at the centre and the lead of many of the movements we have in our country. They have strong ideas about the future, and the future is what we are going to be handing to them. When we talk about the things we are doing here in this place now, that relates to their future as well, so it is important to make sure they have the opportunity to get engaged and to be the leaders they are, and that translates into their being able to vote.
One thing I have found interesting is that political parties often reduce the age from 18 for people to be able to get involved in the party and become members. There is a bit of a distinction between the people who might be able to vote to nominate the person who will be the candidate in an election for a certain party and those who might actually be able to vote in the election itself. There is a bit of a funny mix there. As political parties, we often recognize that people under the age of 18 have something to contribute to the choices we make.
I know I do not have much more time, so I want to focus on mentioning that we are talking about the voting age today, which I think is very important, but we have also taken actions as a government over the past years to try to assist young people to be able to vote more. For example, the Government of Canada established the register of future electors in 2019 so that young Canadians can pre-register to vote, to remove one of the barriers to people who are going to be voting for the first time.
There are definitely a lot of community-led groups that work to try to engage more people to understand the democratic process, how to vote and those pieces. We have been supporting youth-led projects that promote civic engagement in youth services through programs like Canadian Heritage's youth take charge program.
As a government, we have recognized the importance of engaging young people and making sure they understand how the voting process works. Why not take that next step and recognize that they have so much to contribute and reduce the voting age to 16?
On that note, I want to say I am supportive of this bill. I think it is a wonderful thing that we are considering doing it. I consider it an evolution in the way we address voting in our country. I am so proud that so many young people have taken a moment to become engaged and have their voices heard, like the young people on my youth council, and to show that they are ready. They are ready to vote and to take hold of the reins of their future.
1433 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will not be asking questions, but I will share my comments, which I hope members will find very interesting.
First and foremost, let me pay my respects to those people who have to get ready for Hurricane Fiona, which is coming to their area, especially members such as you, Mr. Speaker. I do not know if I can personalize it, but you warned us very clearly today that this is a very serious issue. I would say to all the people who are in the path of the storm to please get ready and for others to not be afraid to make phone calls outside of the area to help those people if they need it. We are very pleased to hear that the official opposition leader and the government are working hand in hand to address this issue.
Hurricane Fiona is of course bearing down on eastern Canada, and chances are the impact on the Magdalen Islands and the Lower North Shore on Quebec's north shore will be brutal. We would like to remind everyone likely to be directly affected to plan accordingly. Anyone who knows people in the area should call them to offer support.
I also want to point out that Quebeckers will be going to the polls in just a week and a half. Advance polling starts Sunday. The storm may have consequences for advance polling on the Magdalen Islands and the Lower North Shore. We certainly hope voting can proceed as it should.
That is my segue to Quebec elections and the bill before the House today, which would lower the federal voting age from 18 to 16.
We do not support this position. We will always proudly defend the rights of all adolescents, all young Canadians. It is not because we think that 16-year-olds are not ready to vote, quite the contrary. I myself became interested in politics at a very young age and have been a member of the Conservative Party since 1981. At that time, I had a mop of black hair that was wider than my shoulders, but that is another subject. There are pictures, but they will never be made public, my colleagues can be sure of that. I could show my membership card from 1981, but I am not allowed to use props, which is a shame, so maybe that is also for another time.
That being said, I want to assure all 16- and 17-year-olds that it is very good to get involved in political advocacy. However, a limit needs to bet set. Why is the limit set at 18? Why not at 17, or 20 or 21? It is simply because we have to set a limit.
There will always be good arguments for increasing or lowering that limit, even by a few days, but there needs to be a limit. Along the same lines, there needs to be a limit for very technical issues such as creating time zones. In some places, the time can be different in two towns five kilometres apart. Is that the end of the world? No. At some point there needs to be a limit.
Mr. Speaker, I look at you and I am reminded that in New Brunswick and in the Atlantic provinces, when a television show is broadcast, it is always an hour later in the Maritimes. Sometimes I get the impression that it is an hour ahead of us, but that is another issue, and we will have a chance to debate it.
We therefore need to set an age limit. Of course, we know that the minimum age is not 18 for some civilian activities. For example, people can became an army reservist at age 16, and they can enlist in the army at age 17.
Some will say that, if a person can be ready to give their life for their country at age 17, then they should have the right to vote at age 17. However I would like to add a rather important point: those individuals need their parents' consent to enlist. If we apply the same principle to the right to vote at age 17 or 18, then those individuals would need their parents' consent to vote. If the parents do not think the same way as their child does, then would they give their child permission to vote? That could cause problems and arguments, and we do not need that.
That is why the age limit can be lower than 18 for certain civilian activities, but in those cases, parental consent is required, and that would not really work in the democratic process.
The same is true for driver's licences. When I was young, people could get a full driver's licence at age 16. With time and experience, Quebec increased the age for getting a full driver's licence to 19. This sort of thing can be assessed and we should be grateful for that. This is not the first time that the House has been asked to vote on a bill like this.
The people who did research for this bill drew my attention to the fact that, when he was a young MP back in 2005, which is not to say that he is an old MP now, the current government House leader, my former counterpart with whom I always greatly enjoyed working, introduced Bill C‑261. I remind members that this bill was defeated at second reading, which indicates that the current governing party might not have supported its current government leader. We shall see.
I had the privilege of sitting on a committee that was reviewing election legislation to allow for a casting vote. The Hon. Rona Ambrose, interim leader of our party, assigned me the responsibility of sitting on this committee. The committee made 13 recommendations, none of which had to do specifically with age. People were, however, quite open to honouring the election promise made by the government, which swore that the previous election would be the last under first-past-the-post, a system that ensures that members represent their ridings without any outside compensation. The Liberal Party made a promise, hand on heart, to change the electoral system, but that recommendation fell by the wayside because the Liberal government and the Prime Minister decided to abandon that promise midstream.
If by any chance the Liberals start lecturing or preaching about political commitments on voting ages, let us not forget that one of their top election promises in 2015 was to scrap the electoral system we have been using since 1867. However, they ended up scrapping their commitment, rather than scrapping the system.
I would also like to remind you that in 2015, since we are talking about it and, objectively speaking, it needs to be acknowledged, there were many young people who voted, which is wonderful. They may not have voted for us, but the important thing is that they voted.
Some have pointed out that over the last few months, during our party's leadership race, a lot of young people got involved and invested in supporting the candidacy of the member for Carleton. That is very good for democracy. The more young people who participate, the better. Some people will say that we should allow 16-year-olds to vote because that will give them even more of a taste for getting involved in politics, and thus increase voter turnout. That is a good thing.
There are precedents. Similar legislation was passed in Austria. There was an uptick in voter turnout at first, but it tumbled in the following three elections. Essentially, age is not the main factor that gets young people to the polls; it has more to do with their level of interest in election issues. I cannot stress this enough: we should all take an interest in politics no matter how old we are. When people cast their first ballot at 18, that is a deeply meaningful moment because it is the first time they mark that “X” and make that effort to get out there and vote for someone. We have said it before, and we will say it again: people have to vote to participate in the process.
Although the Conservative Party is not in favour of Bill C‑210, there is absolutely no reason young people should not get politically motivated, engaged and involved when they are 16, 17 or 18. I have been told that some of our fellow members were very young when they first got involved in politics, such as my friend from St. Albert—Edmonton, who was 14 when he got his start. That is never a bad thing.
In closing, I want to say that, as we speak, the electoral map is being redrawn. That occurs every 10 years. In my riding, there may be major changes, namely that the indigenous community of Wendake and the northern section of Loretteville, which we call Château-d'Eau, will be in a different riding. I will leave that to the experts. Personally, I am always uncomfortable having an elected member vote for or against a change in the electoral map, because we are judging something we have a stake in. I can say one thing: If it turns out that I no longer have the honour of representing the people of Wendake and the people of Château-d'Eau, the place where I was born and raised and where my parents settled in 1962, that will certainly break my heart. However, electoral maps are not drawn with the incumbent member's emotions in mind.
1621 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House, especially since I am asked these kinds of questions at home. I have two children, a 17-year-old boy and a 15-year-old girl, who may have been exposed to politics from a young age. I just want to address a number of points that are fairly nuanced.
I first want to speak about the studies. Let us look at the issue purely from an academic perspective for now. It was mentioned earlier that some countries have lowered the voting age to 16, and that is true. It happened not that long ago, so it is difficult to obtain sound evidence on this issue. Generally speaking, we can agree that there is a scientific consensus: Early exposure to the electoral process establishes a habit of taking an interest in politics and voting. Perhaps they would not call it “early” exposure if people already had the right to vote at 16. Anyway, young voters would develop this habit specifically because they are young when they start voting. There are also all the civic skills that are developed, such as civic engagement and respect for institutions. Boosting confidence in institutions would be one of the positive aspects, according to the studies. When we ourselves participate in institutions, we feel more like they represent us and also our ideas and what we want. Those are some of the positive arguments found in the academic literature regarding voting at 16. At the same time, as I already mentioned, the literature on the subject is scant so far. Consequently, we hear opinions on each side of the argument. I am talking about opinions and not ideas.
I would also like to talk about voter turnout, which was mentioned earlier. Voter turnout, whether for municipal, provincial or federal elections, keeps dropping. I have seen it in my own riding. If the premise of the studies is true, then we can expect this change to increase voter turnout over the years because young people will get into the habit of voting. Obviously, five, 10 or 15 years down the road, we should have a certain level of voter turnout. This is all theoretical, but let us be optimistic. It should raise voter turnout.
That is how things look from a scientific perspective, but that is not the only perspective we need to consider. Given all of the uncertainty, as I thought about this issue, I wondered what we are afraid of. I get the impression that there is a lot of fear. That is true of any change. It is human nature to fear change. I asked myself, in good faith, what stereotypes there might be about 16-year-olds. Some members talked about immaturity and inexperience. Some may also be worried about their ideology. Often, younger generations do not necessarily share our ideologies. These young people will question us, challenge us and talk about what is important to them. Of course, this might test our mettle. I find this to also be true in my personal life sometimes.
I started to wonder. I obviously do not have the answer to all the questions it raises. However, my daughter said to me that some people may say that 15-year-olds are not mature, but she knows adults who are not particularly mature either. That is probably not the case for the majority, but at the same time, how do we measure maturity? On a more serious note, I would say that young people, like adults, have different life experiences. They have different backgrounds, meaning that they will all make different choices when they put their ballot in the box, whether they are 20, 30, 15 or 70 years old.
I talked about life experiences, but knowledge also matters. Some would argue that young people do not have enough knowledge. It is a bit of a chicken and egg situation. Would having the right to vote at 16 increase how much young people know, because they would take an interest earlier, or do they need to have some degree of knowledge beforehand?
As we can all agree, education falls under Quebec and provincial jurisdiction, but it seems to me that this could have a ripple effect if we decide, as a society, to give young people the right to vote. If they are given the tools, which can be done, that may alleviate our concerns that they are not knowledgeable enough. I fear that that is more of a worry for our generation, rather than for the 16-year-olds themselves.
I did not think I would be talking about this, but young people do have access to a lot of information that was not available to me. I was born in 1977, so I am not all that young, but neither am I 90. The fact remains that, for me, sources of information were rather limited, but that is not the case today. I think we need to bear that in mind, as well. Maybe young people are more switched on. We cannot underestimate all the information they can access, or their capacity for critical thinking.
I do not know how I am doing on time and do not want to go over. I will conclude by talking about young people.
This may sound trite or cliché, but as I heard earlier, the future belongs to them. The decisions we make today about the right to vote at 16 will have an impact on their immediate future. Take the environment, for example, and climate change, which we talked about today. These are important issues for young people.
There is also the whole issue of representation. We want to be as democratic as possible. Earlier I mentioned voter turnout, but another factor is ideological representation. Young people do not all have the same opinions on things. Although some young people do share some of our opinions, they can contribute new ideas. We could breathe new life into our democracy by bringing in a new age group and a diversity of ideological views.
Earlier I mentioned that my children got into politics when they were young, much like Obelix fell into the magic potion. I will leave the last word to my son Loïc. He is 17. He recently received a card saying that soon he will be able to vote. He was quite proud of that.
We talk about more than just politics at home. We have a lot of other things to discuss, but I asked him what he thought about voting at 16. He sent me a text saying, “for”. Then I asked why. He responded, “Why 18?” I think that simply shows the arbitrary nature of this. He added, “Mom, as soon as you can make an important decision that has an impact on yourself and others, then you can vote.”
Now it is up to us to make that choice.
1172 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to speak in favour of the bill put forward by my NDP colleague and member of Parliament for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, which proposes a lowering of the voting age to 16. I want to also acknowledge my NDP colleague and member of Parliament for Vancouver Kingsway, who has brought forward the same bill multiple times on this exact topic stretching across the last five Parliaments. Additionally, I know other parties in the House today have brought forward bills on this exact subject.
I am happy to speak today to this important bill that has once again been brought forward in Parliament. However, it is clear that it is time to go beyond debate and vote in favour of sending this bill to committee so the work can finally be done and the changes put in place to ensure the voices of young people are heard.
I am hearing loud and clear from many young people in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith that they want their vote to count in the decisions that impact their futures. When I hear the argument from some that an individual is not mature enough at the age of 16 to be given the responsibility of voting, I immediately think of Nanaimo—Ladysmith constituent, Ava.
At not quite 16 years of age, Ava has already shown maturity beyond her years. Five years ago, she travelled to China to participate in the World Youth Model United Nations, where she researched the issues before arguing passionately for the rights of those living with disabilities, as well as the rights of indigenous people. Two years ago, at 14, Ava was elected student council president at her secondary school. She served two one-year terms as president and still maintains a role on council today.
When we talked about lowering the voting age, Ava spoke eloquently about the concerns she and her classmates have. She spoke about the realities she and her peers will face as adults in just a few short years. She talked about how having the right to vote when she turned 16 would allow her to have a say in who is making the decisions for her future. Ava also talked about how important the work being done by politicians now is and how much it will impact what her life will look like in a couple of years when she is leaving for college or entering the workforce. Like most young people, Ava is very aware that the decisions made in Parliament today by those not facing the same uncertainties will greatly impact her tomorrow.
Increasingly, young people in our country are thinking and worrying about the problems they will face as they enter adulthood, but they are not just thinking about it. They are taking action. Our young leaders are stepping up and effecting change. In British Columbia alone, young people are seeing the impacts of climate change right before their eyes: heat domes, forest fires that wipe out entire communities, and droughts followed by flooding, destroying farms, crops, livestock and homes. The damages continue to build and the number of lives impacted increases.
We know the impacts of climate change are not isolated to B.C., and that these repercussions stretch the length of Canada and around the world. Hurricane Fiona, which is about to hit the east coast, is another frightening example.
It is clear that the decisions made by previous generations impact individuals today, just as the decisions we make today will impact future generations to come. Young people are seeing the dream of home ownership being pulled out from under their feet. They are losing loved ones at a tragic rate to the toxic substance supply crisis. All the while their student debts are becoming higher than ever before.
At the same time, in British Columbia, 16-year-olds have the responsibility of driving vehicles and making medical decisions around their own bodies. Many of these young people are also working and paying taxes on their earnings. Like everyone else, they work hard to earn their wages. They send taxes from their earnings to the government to support federal services, but unlike those 18 years of age and over, they have no say about who makes up government, sets tax rates and spends the taxes they pay. They have taxation with no representation, a situation that is inherently unjust and unfair.
Despite this, young people continue to be told they are not mature enough to vote. The dismissal of young people, claiming they lack capacity or maturity to take on the responsibility of voting, is a false dichotomy. It is an argument that has been used over and over throughout history in attempts to prevent women, indigenous people and other racialized individuals from gaining the right to vote. It is a false narrative made not out of concern for protecting vulnerable groups, but out of the desire to maintain the status quo.
These types of arguments reinforce an unnecessary, paternalistic system that reflects a flawed understanding of the cognitive capacity of young people. Psychological research has shown that by age 16, individuals are completely able to make informed decisions that require complex thinking, and the world is taking note.
Several countries, including Austria, Scotland, Wales, Brazil, Argentina and several states in Germany have already taken the step of lowering the voting age, with profound results. Voter turnout statistics from these countries show that 16- and 17-year-olds voted at a higher rate than their 18- and 19-year-old counterparts. Further, there is evidence to suggest that these turnout rates increase over time for all young people.
Like many young people around the world, Canada's youth are no longer content to sit, seen but not heard, while the adults make decisions around their future. Instead, they are demanding loud and clear to be heard and to have a seat at the political table. I am hearing from engaged, passionate young people in my riding who want their voices and votes to count.
Thirteen-year-old Franklin, also a constituent from my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, shared with me a speech he wrote when he was just 12 years old. In his powerful speech, he says that young people “should be given the right to vote, because they would be voting for the future as well as for the present. Voting would give new, fresh ideas and more learning opportunities.” He goes on to say that young people “play an important role in society and not having their voices heard as much will delay important matters.”
Sixteen-year-old Marina, also a constituent in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, shared with me, “What sense does it make to let another generation decide our future? Youth like us have the most at stake with political decisions being made right now, and experts say we might lose it all. Climate change is threatening to destroy our communities, while economists are warning of a pandemic recession to affect us for decades. When will we get to decide how to fix these downfalls, rather than consulting the generation who created them? I really hope to be able to decide my future, rather than being stuck in one with an irreversibly damaged world.”
Canada's very own Youth Advisory Council agrees. Its first-ever state of the youth report from 2021 says this:
[Y]outh want to participate in the decisions that affect them and want those in the government and others to acknowledge and recognize their agency and autonomy. To give youth greater agency and participation, it is important that the voting age in Canada be lowered from 18 to 16.
The desire Canadian youth have to engage in the political process is nowhere more evident than in programs such as student vote Canada. This program, which is now more popular than ever, collaborates with schools to give students the opportunity to experience the voting process first-hand and to begin practising the habits of active and informed citizenship. In 2021, more than 800,000 young people and 5,900 schools in every riding across the country participated in this school-based version of the federal election.
It has been shown that good habits built in an individual's youth are more likely to continue into adulthood. By working to ensure young people understand our democracy, the election process and how to gather information to make informed decisions, high school teachers and passionate civics educators across the country, including in Nanaimo—Ladysmith's School District No. 68, are ensuring that our youth are ready to come to the ballot box.
There is ample evidence of the benefits of lowering the voting age. We know that when a young person is still in school and living at home when voting for the first time, they are better equipped and supported to get registered and to vote. They are more likely to have the time to become informed on the issues and to make decisions about how to vote. Once established, these habits then carry with these young adults as they move forward in life. However, the opposite is seen when voting begins at 18. Lowering the voting age would allow many young people to become engaged and register to vote with the supports of their home community in place.
Our democracy is at its best when it reflects the Canadian values of equity, diversity and inclusion, and it is time those values were more truly ingrained within our electoral processes. We have passed the point where electoral reform as a catchy sound bite is enough. Young people feel frustrated and disenfranchised by a democratic system that fails to represent them.
1634 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying it is a privilege to be speaking here on behalf of the constituents of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan. Our thoughts and prayers are with those in eastern Canada as they brace for the storm that is about to hit the shores of Canada. We want to let them know we are with them in our thoughts and prayers.
It is a pleasure today to join the debate on Bill C-210. This bill, put forward by the NDP member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, would lower the voting age in Canada from 18 to 16. I have some concerns with this bill, but first it is important to give some important background on it.
The last time the voting age in Canada was lowered was back in 1970, the year I was born. We lowered it from 21 to what it is today, 18 years of age. In the 1972 election, right after the voting age was lowered, voter turnout increased just 1%, up to 76.7%. Let us think about that number for a minute. Most of us would be surprised if the voter turnout in the next election was even that high. For the sake of comparison, the turnout in the last election, in 2021, was 62.5%. Turnout in Canadian elections has been hovering around that number for at least the last 15 years.
Today's debate is about the youth's vote, so let us look at that information and the data, according to Statistics Canada, on those aged 18 to 24. Just 66% of that age bracket voted in the last election. That compares with 80% of those aged 55 to 64 and 83% of those aged 65 to 74. One must wonder if lowering the voting age to 16 would do much to increase voter turnout in our country. In fact, a 2004 study from Cambridge University concluded there was no evidence such a change would do anything to increase voter turnout here.
This ties in well with what we have been debating all week in the House: the cost of living and the challenges the next generation is facing. The 18-to-24 demographic has been one of the hardest hit by the skyrocketing costs of living. Someone of that age used to be able to find a decent paying job, save money and maybe buy a nice starter house. Today, that is a fantasy; it is unattainable. Young people are having trouble affording rent while also paying for groceries, gas and other necessities.
However, do not worry; the government is here to help. It is sending renters $500 to put toward a year's worth of rent. Let us hold off on that for just a moment and analyze it. Only one in five renters will qualify for that $500 cheque. Seriously, the government thinks $40 per month will help someone whose rent is well over $2,000 in some markets, and not everybody will qualify. Even in Moose Jaw, the average rent is around $1,000 a month.
The fact is, life for young Canadians has become harder and more expensive under the Liberal government. While this bill would lower the voting age, we know there are several other demographics that historically have had lower voting rates than average: first nations, those with disabilities and many more. We have many well-thought-out ideas and recommendations on how to encourage these groups to vote.
I know that, prior to the last election, my colleagues on the procedure and House affairs committee did tremendous work on a study on how to safely hold an election during the pandemic. I would like to thank my friends from Perth—Wellington and Elgin—Middlesex—London for their work on that committee. They heard from advocates for all these groups about lower voter turnouts. They heard several ideas on how to get more people to vote. Ultimately, this study and all its recommendations were ignored. The first goal of this place should be to encourage those who are currently eligible to vote to go out and vote.
My colleague, the member for Calgary Shepard, spoke of this bill earlier. He spoke about the responsibilities of citizenship and that is something that I would like to talk about. Canadians can join the military reserves at the age of 16 with parental consent. In Saskatchewan, someone can get a learner's driver's licence at the age of 16, but they must drive with an adult. In other areas, it is about earning the responsibility and earning the respect. The purchase of alcohol and cannabis in Saskatchewan is limited to those who are age 19. The fact is that we place limits on young people in Canada. People get the full benefits of citizenship as they get older.
Democracy is important to me. My grandfather fought alongside Canadians in World War II. Canadians were kind and generous. They went overseas. My mother, who was growing up in Scotland, met lots of Canadian soldiers. These Canadian soldiers would bring chocolates, candy, dolls and other things my parents could not get. They were kind and generous. On the front, my grandfather fought alongside Canadians, and he saw the sacrifices they were willing to make in order to preserve democracy and freedom.
Democracy and the ability to vote is a privilege and it requires careful thought and consideration. Ultimately, I do not see a compelling argument that this bill would do anything to address the issue of lower voter turnouts. We have known for years how to address this ongoing issue. We need to lower barriers to make it easier to vote, yes, but we also have to encourage those existing voters by giving them good policies and a positive direction for the future of this country.
Most importantly, we need to give people a reason to vote for good things. This legislation will not do it. Ultimately, we have to earn the voter's respect.
1010 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
