44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 23, 2022 10:00AM
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 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
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today and speak in favour of the wonderful bill introduced by the great member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. I think the bill is so pivotal and engages so many important concepts about our democracy.
When I was first elected 14 years ago, in 2008, I sat down with my young staffer, Sam Heppell, and we talked about bills to be introduced in the House. I asked him what he thought should be the first bill I introduced as a private member. Without flinching, he said, “Lower the voting age.” I said, “Really? Tell me why that is an important bill.” He said, “Well, tell me. Are you a democrat?” I said, “Yes I am.” He said, “That is the only reason you need.”
In listening to the debate and listening to my colleagues on the Conservative side there is a fundamental difference in what the proper characterization is to give to voting in a democracy. I just heard a Conservative colleague refer to voting in this country as a privilege. I disagree. Voting is a right. It is a right of citizenship. I think that is where we start this debate.
The truth is that in a democracy, if we really have government by the people for the people, if we really have values of democracy that we uphold to the world on the global stage, that means we give to our citizens, without discrimination, the right to have a say in who their government is and what laws govern them. That is democracy. When we have barriers that seek to take away that right from certain citizens based on different attributes, that is where I think this debate starts.
The truth is that the history of the franchise in Canada is one of constant movement. This country started off with giving the vote to white males of a certain age who owned property. I think it was over the age of 21. Then it became white males over 21 regardless of whether they owned property. Then it was white males over 21. Over the years, it has been expanded to women and to indigenous people. At one time, based on one's race, one could not vote in this country. If one was of Japanese or Chinese ancestry, one could not vote in this country. Ultimately, of course, we lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. The history of the franchise as democracies evolve is one of constantly expanding the right to vote.
Why is this an important bill? New Democrats have stood in the House and outlined literally a dozen or more different reasons. This is a time of low voter turnout. I have just added up the percentage of every federal election since 2000, and we have an average of 63% turnout. That means about four in 10 Canadians do not even cast a ballot. That number has been steadily declining over the past century. The numbers in provincial elections and municipal elections are actually appalling, where the percentage of democratic participation in this country sometimes is in the high teens or low twenties.
In this country, we have a crisis in our democracy that we, as parliamentarians, ought to address. One way to address it is to expand the voting age to a portion of our population that has been discriminated against purely because of their age. It is the arbitrary drawing of a line without any regard to ability.
What are the benefits of lowering the voting age? First of all, it would increase participation. Research is absolutely clear. We should lower the voting age and combine that particularly with a strong program in our high schools where we educate our young people of the obligations of citizenship and teach them how our democracy works, without any regard for how they vote but just that they should vote. If we can get young people to vote in the first election they are capable of voting in, they are like to be voters for life.
The chances are good of an election happening for a 16-year-old or 17-year-old in grades 10, 11 or 12. We have a three in four chance that there is is going to be an election while they are in high school. We can use that crucial time to start establishing that positive record of voting in our democracy.
Sixteen-year-olds and 17-year-olds have the longest view of any citizen. The issues that are important for them may be different from those for someone who is 80 or 90 years old. They are looking 80 years into the future, yet we are preventing them from having their say in the issues that will affect them probably most profoundly.
I also think young people show a responsibility and, as never before, are engaged in our democracy. I have met 17-year-olds and 16-year-olds, frankly I have met 14-year-olds and 15-year-olds, who are engaged politically, interested in the world around them, informed and would cast an absolutely informed and responsible vote. It pains me to say this but contrarily I have met 50-year-olds who are completely disengaged from the political process, and we would never think of preventing them from going to a ballot box. The idea that some people have raised that 17-year-olds are, by some definition, not qualified to vote is applying a standard to 17-year-olds that we would never apply to anybody else.
We have already outlined that many 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds work and pay taxes. The American Revolution was fought in part over the rallying cry of “no taxation without representation”. We take money off a paycheque of a 16-year-old and a 17-year-old, willingly. Conservatives do this. Liberals do this. Then we turn around and tell those people they have no say in how that money is spent. Frankly, that is absolutely unacceptable.
We allow 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds, in many cases, to drive, to serve in the military, to shoot a firearm, to buy ammunition and to marry with consent. They can join political parties and vote in political leaderships, just like 14-year-olds, 15-year-olds and 16-year-olds do in the NDP, and I am sure under 18-year-olds did in the recent Conservative leadership.
To wrap things up, I will just say this is an excellent idea. Let us engage people in our democracy. Let us support this and make Canada's democracy flourish in a better way.
1129 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
