Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question and for underlining the situation in Myanmar.

Canada, as you know, condemns the convictions and other abuses, and the coup d’état particularly, in Myanmar. With regard to the specific question, I’m not aware of a decision that has been made with regard to a resolution at the United Nations. I will certainly make inquiries, and if an answer is forthcoming, I will be glad to share it in the chamber.

Hon. Salma Ataullahjan: My question is for the government leader in the Senate.

Senator Gold, last fall, an investigation by “The Fifth Estate” revealed that the office of the Minister of Immigration was aware of the urgency needed to take decisive action and bring our interpreters to safety in Canada. As early as February 2020, the Minister of Immigration was contacted by Liberal MP Marcus Powlowski. An article published this morning by the National Post revealed Mr. Powlowski had pushed to rescue Afghan interpreters weeks before Kabul fell, citing credible evidence of an imminent Taliban attack against Canadian interpreters and concerns brought to him by an Aman Lara co-founder.

While strict paperwork rules and deadlines imposed by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, led to hundreds of desperate evacuees exposing themselves to Taliban collaborators by rushing to local internet cafés to complete the application, Jeff Valois, who was at the time an advisor to the Prime Minister, allegedly ordered Powlowski to stay in his lane and to let professionals in the ministries handle it.

Senator Gold, in light of the growing number of blunders committed by our government, many are losing faith in Canada’s rescue efforts. Why is our government playing political games instead of saving lives?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Well, senator, thank you for your question and for underlining the ongoing challenges and problems that are facing those in Afghanistan.

With respect, the government is not playing political games. It is dealing with it as best it can. The government has been monitoring the situation closely. Canadian Armed Forces personnel were present in Afghanistan from early 2021 to monitor the situation on the ground. Canada was part of an air bridge with allies that saved as many people as it could throughout the difficult circumstances. The Armed Forces worked around the clock to evacuate as many people as possible for so long as conditions permitted, saving thousands of people under extraordinarily difficult circumstances.

We did not evacuate as many people as we would have liked to in August. The government is committed to exercising all of its available options to evacuate Canadians and our Afghan allies via land or air. I have finally been advised that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is in close contact with our allies and other countries in the region to help get as many people out as possible.

Senator Ataullahjan: Senator Gold, there is mounting evidence showing Canada’s mismanagement of rescue efforts in Afghanistan. A quick extraction force sat idly at a Kuwaiti air force base for days. A Canadian embassy staffer publicly outed an interpreter and safe house facilitator. The video shows Canadian soldiers ignoring Global Affairs Canada-approved evacuees at the Kabul airport.

There have also been reports of evacuees with perfect paperwork being turned away and of families being separated at checkpoints, leaving spouses and children behind because of trivial inconsistencies with their documents. Why is our government continually placing paperwork above saving lives?

Hon. Amina Gerba: Honourable senators, as I rise in this chamber to speak in response to the Speech from the Throne, I feel humbled by the work that needs to be accomplished, but I also feel a strong desire to help do that work on behalf of Canadians.

Before I begin, I want to recognize that we are gathered on the unceded territory of the Anishinaabeg, Anishinaabe, Atikamekw and Mohawk peoples. I extend my warmest greetings to them and to all First Nations, Métis and Inuit people in our country.

All Canadians should be part of the reconciliation effort, which, fortunately, is under way and must be given our support and ongoing attention.

Honourable senators, as I rise to make my maiden speech, I would like to thank my family, my friends and my business partners, who encouraged me to join you. I must also thank the Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, who recommended my appointment.

I also thank Senators Marc Gold, Donald Plett, Raymonde Saint-Germain, Pierre Dalphond and Scott Tannas for their warm welcome at my swearing-in in November.

In the Speech from the Throne to open the Forty-fourth Parliament, the government emphasized the need to build a more resilient economy to ensure a better future for Canadians and Canada. In order to fully meet those goals, the government identified preserving and expanding trade as a top priority.

Honourable senators, I am pleased with these overarching goals. They are in keeping with the spirit of what I have tried to accomplish throughout my career. Over a quarter century ago, upon graduating from the Université du Québec à Montréal, I began working as a strategy consultant.

I was responsible for projects for Africa and for helping our companies expand their business to the African continent and around the world. That early experience taught me how complicated it is to do business with international partners.

As I navigated legal systems, customs and tax requirements, transportation logistics, financial and technology transfer, consumer habits and marketing channels, I quickly learned that our entrepreneurs need to know and master many ins and outs in order for their investment or commercial ventures to succeed.

I greatly admire and respect our fellow Canadians who are expanding our international trade. When it comes to the African continent, the lack of precedent, lack of knowledge about private channels and available public resources, lack of economic and business data and, in some cases, a tarnished reputation have made it even more challenging to provide consulting services that are useful to Canadian exporters. That realization inspired me to start a consulting firm called Afrique Expansion Inc. in 1995 to help make the Canadian business community more aware of the opportunities available in Africa.

Given the interest generated by our activities, especially our initial trade missions to Africa, three years later, in 1998, my husband and I started an international economic magazine called Afrique Expansion Magazine. Today, that magazine is a reliable reference work for North Americans to find economic information about Africa.

It is also the only Canadian magazine that is distributed in some 20 African countries. To further consolidate partnerships between Canadian and African companies, in 2003, we created the Forum Afrique Expansion, which has since become the largest business networking platform for Canadian and African investors and exporters.

Held every two years in Montreal, the forum brings together 500 African and Canadian decision makers and investors, as well as heads of Canadian and international financial institutions, including the World Bank, the African Development Bank and the African Export-Import Bank.

Many heads of state and government leaders, Canadian provincial premiers, and federal and provincial government ministers have also attended the forum.

Since its creation, the forum has organized over 3,000 B2B meetings and facilitated the signing of contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars for Canadian businesses.

Honourable senators, our country does have a presence in Africa and its major institutions, including the African Development Bank and the African Union. Although our diplomatic representation in Africa may have decreased in the past few years or decades, our representatives there are still dedicated and effective, as I have had the opportunity to witness on several occasions. I was delighted with our excellent diplomats there, whose presence and work are vital to the success of our businesses.

Some of our major institutions, such as EDC, have a modest but important presence on the African continent. We also can’t forget the outstanding work being done by our trade delegates, as well as Quebec’s delegations to Africa.

However, considering the objective data regarding Africa’s evolution and the extremely strong interest that the world’s most powerful countries are taking in Africa, it seems as though Canada is sidelining itself by failing to capitalize on the comparative advantages and opportunities available in Africa today.

During the first quarter of this year, China, Russia, Turkey, the European Union and Saudi Arabia have held or will be holding summits with the leaders of Africa’s 54 countries. Trade is on the agenda for all of these high-level meetings. Other countries, such as Germany, Italy, Vietnam, the United Arab Emirates, Korea, Israel and Brazil are accelerating major collaborations with Africa’s economies.

I want to reiterate that, unfortunately, it seems as though our country is sidelining itself by failing to capitalize on the comparative advantages and opportunities that can currently be derived from the demographic, urban, industrial and technological dynamics of a continent that may have up to 2.4 billion inhabitants, 2.4 billion consumers, by 2040-50, and that is one of the three largest communities of internet users in the world, along with India and China.

According to the 2020 report of the Observatoire de la Francophonie économique, Africa represents just 2% of all trade with Canada. There is room to expand our trade with Africa and, therefore, an opportunity to grow our economy.

Honourable senators, our country’s international trade portfolio is impressive. As you know, Canada and the European Union have strong trade and investment ties. Canada is also very involved in Asia, and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership will enhance our economic ties with many Asian countries.

However, Africa is currently not on Canada’s radar when it comes to current and prospective exports and imports in goods and services. Why are we forgetting about Africa’s undeniable assets when seeking out trade opportunities, given that all of the world’s leading trading nations are looking to get their share of what will soon be one of the largest economic markets?

Honourable senators, Africa is a large market that is moving toward unification. Its GDP represents US$3 trillion. This market will make Africa the biggest free trade zone in the world.

By the middle of this century, one in four people will live on that continent, which will be the most youthful in the world by far. When it comes to maintaining global security and the planetary ecological balance and meeting the socio-economic needs of the human race, nothing about Africa’s affairs will escape the world’s notice. Moreover, Africa will play a key role in all global affairs. In order to be successful, Canada needs to recognize that and create a dynamic with Africa like the one it has developed and is seeking to enhance with Europe and Asia.

Honourable senators, I will make developing our relationship with Africa the main object of my contribution to advancing the affairs of our nation. That is baked into my personal and professional commitments.

Right now, I think that Canada should dedicate all of its expertise and its top institutional resources to supporting the successful implementation of the African Continental Free Trade Area, or AfCFTA. This wonderful initiative will create a single market made up of the continent’s 54 countries and stimulate the enhanced international trade we are going to need.

As I stand before you, I have a dream that our country, Canada, will eventually sign a free trade agreement with AfCFTA and thus agree to include Africa in the modern economy, on the same footing as the other large economic regions of the world. This initiative would help increase trade between Canada and Africa, diversify Canada’s international trade and grow our economy.

In the meantime and in order to prepare, Canada could develop a policy to support Africa’s production of goods and services, similar to the African Growth and Opportunity Act, or AGOA, which was enacted by the United States in the early 2000s. It would no doubt also be beneficial for us to review the economic strategy created by Washington last year called Prosper Africa, which focuses on accelerating investment and trade between Africa and the United States.

Honourable senators, enhancing our economic and trade relations with African countries, their regional economic communities and their continental free trade zone would certainly enrich our economy. It would also lead to greater political and diplomatic support for our international initiatives. We have needed that in the past, and we will need it again in the future.

Esteemed colleagues, through legislation and meaningful action, we, as legislators, can make things happen and participate in cultural, social and economic change.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to pursue these goals in this chamber with you and in solidarity with all of the Canadians we have the privilege to serve.

Thank you for your kind attention. Asante.

(On motion of Senator Gagné, debate adjourned.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Cotter:

Whereas on October 21, 1880, the Government of Canada entered into a contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway Syndicate for the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway;

Whereas, by clause 16 of the 1880 Canadian Pacific Railway contract, the federal government agreed to give a tax exemption to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company;

Whereas, in 1905, the Parliament of Canada passed the Saskatchewan Act, which created the Province of Saskatchewan;

Whereas section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act refers to clause 16 of the 1880 Canadian Pacific Railway Contract;

Whereas the Canadian Pacific Railway was completed on November 6, 1885, with the Last Spike at Craigellachie, and has been operating as a going concern for 136 years;

Whereas, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has paid applicable taxes to the Government of Saskatchewan since the Province was established in 1905;

Whereas it would be unfair to the residents of Saskatchewan if a major corporation were exempt from certain provincial taxes, casting that tax burden onto the residents of Saskatchewan;

Whereas it would be unfair to other businesses operating in Saskatchewan, including small businesses, if a major corporation were exempt from certain provincial taxes, giving that corporation a significant competitive advantage over those other businesses, to the detriment of farmers, consumers and producers in the Province;

Whereas it would not be consistent with Saskatchewan’s position as an equal partner in Confederation if there were restrictions on its taxing powers that do not apply to other provinces;

Whereas on August 29, 1966, the then President of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, Ian D. Sinclair, advised the then federal Minister of Transport, Jack Pickersgill, that the Board of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company had no objection to constitutional amendments to eliminate the tax exemption;

Whereas section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies;

Whereas the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, on November 29, 2021, adopted a resolution authorizing an amendment to the Constitution of Canada;

Now, therefore, the Senate resolves that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada be authorized to be made by proclamation issued by Her Excellency the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada in accordance with the annexed schedule.

SCHEDULE

AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA

1.Section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act is repealed.

2.The repeal of section 24 is deemed to have been made on August 29, 1966, and is retroactive to that date.

CITATION

3.This Amendment may be cited as the Constitution Amendment, [year of proclamation] (Saskatchewan Act).

Senator Gold: Thank you for this question. I too spent a lot of time studying the court’s reasons. The answer is no. As the Government Representative, I believe, and the government believes, that it is important for the Senate to join forces with the elected members in the other place and those in the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan to resolve this issue and quickly and efficiently correct what I would refer to as a “historic anomaly,” if I may use that expression.

One of the reasons for the Senate’s existence is to defend the regions’ interests and ensure that there is not an unjustifiable inequity in the treatment of the regions. No one here sees a problem with doing this. That said, you know me, and if senators wish to take more time to debate the matter and obtain information, I will respect that. I am not here to insist that we proceed before you’re ready.

Allow me to suggest that, ultimately, we are seized with a relatively simple matter. Given that our role as unelected officials is one that places constraints on us in relation to monetary constraints, and given the unanimous support of Saskatchewan’s elected officials and the members of the House of Commons, this is appropriate.

I hope that answers your question.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, my question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

[English]

Senator Gold, I know that our office has been working with the government to try to get timely answers to some of the questions that were posed to you yesterday, for which further information was requested. I am asking this question so that you are afforded an opportunity to put some of these matters on the record for the benefit of our colleagues.

[Translation]

Senator Gold, would you be able to provide us with this information?

Senator Gold: I thank the honourable senator for the question. I will respond in two ways. First, with respect to the 1880 contract, the details are found in several places. I will try to find the text and make it available to senators.

However, it should be noted that in 1880, there was no federal tax. At the time, the taxation system we know today did not exist. At the turn of the 20th century, the Government of Canada introduced several taxes in a wartime context, and CPR paid those taxes. That is why, notwithstanding the wording of clause 16 of the contract, every stakeholder has always understood that the main issue of the situation that concerns us and that concerns Saskatchewan has to do only with provincial taxes.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

[Translation]

Senator Dupuis: Senator Gold, you referred to clause 16 of the contract, which exempts Canadian Pacific from provincial and municipal taxation. Please correct me if I have misunderstood the 1950 Supreme Court ruling in C.P.R. v. A.G. for Saskatchewan. It is an English-only document that quotes clause 16 of the contract, which states that the company, all its facilities and shares, all its capital, and I quote:

[English]

. . . shall be forever free from taxation by the Dominion, or by any province hereafter to be established, or by any municipal corporation therein . . . .

[Translation]

If I read this Supreme Court ruling correctly, it is indeed an exemption from taxation that covers not only provincial and municipal taxes, but also taxation by the Dominion, that is, the federal government. Can you provide us with the documents that relate to this contract, so we can properly consider this motion? I fully agree with you that this is extremely important to the people of Saskatchewan.

Hon. Jim Quinn: This is very interesting to me. I support where this is going, in general. At the same time, after listening to this particular question-and-answer period it seems more complicated for some of us than for those who have stronger backgrounds in such matters.

While respecting the province and the lower chambers voting on this issue, and while I tend to be supportive of this, we would be better served to be well informed and have the opportunity for more discussion. Perhaps we could even hear from CP on their stance on the issue.

Is that something that makes sense for all of us, to be better informed as we take on the decision to agree?

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. Respectfully, colleagues, I do believe that what I have placed on the table and the responses I have given — and I have every confidence that what Senator Cotter will be providing in his speech — will provide you with the information that you need to be properly educated on this. As Senator Dalphond points out, additional material is available in the public record, which will provide further background and context. I am confident that when all is said and done, this chamber will be in a position in a reasonably short time. It’s certainly my hope to include the debate and pass this resolution so that we can correct this unfairness to the government and the people of Saskatchewan.

Hon. David Arnot: Honourable senators, I speak to you today from Saskatoon, which is in the heart of Treaty 6 territory. Treaty 6 was entered into in August 1876 just a few miles north of where I stand at Fort Carlton. This area is also the traditional homeland of the Métis.

Today, I rise to speak in favour of the motion proposed by Senator Gold, the Government Representative in the Senate. This motion is designed to address an historic inequity placed upon the people of Saskatchewan.

In 1871, Canada entered into an agreement to build a national rail line to British Columbia within 10 years as a critical incentive to bring British Columbia into Confederation.

It took various iterations for Canada to get this commitment underway. To support the project, the Government of Canada provided a series of benefits to a consortium of investors, which eventually became the Canadian Pacific Railway company. These inducements included a payment of millions of dollars, a grant of millions of acres and a critical inducement: a tax exemption granted to the CPR in perpetuity — very unusual.

When Alberta and Saskatchewan were incorporated as provinces in 1905, the tax exemption was incorporated into the constitutional documents, resulting in section 24 of The Saskatchewan Act.

During the 20th century, a range of other actions occurred associated with railways, particularly with the transportation of grain. The purpose was to address the monopoly powers of the railways and the financial vulnerabilities of farmers shipping their grain to market. Various federal measures were taken. One included the establishment of the Crow’s Nest Pass rate, which capped the rates that railways could charge to transport grain to port. This protected farmers. However, as the cost of that operation rose, the railways began to experience a financial squeeze.

Ottawa intervened and, based on a transportation inquiry, developed a plan to pay direct subsidies to railways. That inquiry was the 1959 Royal Commission on Transportation, also known as the MacPherson Commission. It was created to investigate transportation policy, particularly freight rate inequities in Canada.

In their 1961 three-volume report, the commissioners, under the chair of Mr. M.A. MacPherson, a well-respected Saskatchewan lawyer, recommended that, first, railways be allowed more freedom to eliminate uneconomic passenger service and branch lines, and second, to receive direct subsidies for grain-handling responsibilities which were imposed upon them by Parliament.

The principles of the report included the value of competition between different forms of transportation, the need to reduce regulatory control and payment of reasonable charges by transportation operators for facilities provided by government. It also recommended the establishment of the Canadian Transport Commission.

In the early 1960s, the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta renewed lobbying efforts to end the constitutionalized tax exemption for the CPR. In 1966, the federal government saw an opportunity to leverage the subsidies in exchange for an agreed end to the CPR tax exemptions.

I have read a copy of the correspondence between Mr. Ian Sinclair, the president of the CPR, and Mr. Jack Pickersgill, the Minister of Transportation. Mr. Pickersgill was a former clerk of the Privy Council. In that letter dated August 29, 1966, Ian Sinclair wrote to the minister and stated:

. . . as a contribution to the rationalization of Canadian transportation legislation, Canadian Pacific would be prepared voluntarily to forgo the perpetual exemption from municipal taxation provided in clause 16 of its contract of 21st October, 1880 . . .

— between Canada and the CPR.

He further wrote that the exemption applies in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. This exemption is contractual, statutory and constitutional.

Sinclair wrote further in the letter:

At any time . . . Canadian Pacific would have no objection to action being taken to amend the constitution and the legislation to terminate the perpetual exemption from local taxation . . .

and that he had the agreement of all of the board of directors.

From the debates in the other place on September 8, 1966, at page 8211, the minister said that the agreement reached between Canada and the CPR “is an act of good corporate citizenship.” Looking back, the minister also commented that he thought the tax exemption had been a mistake to make it in perpetuity.

On January 10, 1967, the minister, speaking in the other place, declared that he had spoken to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and made it very clear to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company that immunity for perpetuity is not desirable in the 20th century. CPR said that if the government gave them the right to raise revenues, “then the company would be glad to give up this immunity.”

It is clear that if the government could change the Constitution, the CPR would not object.

From the debates in the other place on the same day, at page 11,602, Tommy Douglas stated that the “government of Saskatchewan between 1944 and 1964 made repeated representations for changes” to be made so that the CPR would be subject to municipal taxation.

In other words, this issue was a perennial one in the three prairie provinces in Canada throughout the whole of the 20th century. There is no ambiguity in the exchange; in my opinion, it’s very clear. The intent of the parties is evident in the letter of October 29, 1966, and the contemporaneous debates in the other place.

The CPR received what it wanted: an increase in subsidies. The federal government received what it wanted: an end to the tax exemption in section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act. I believe the CPR voluntarily agreed to end the perpetual tax exemption, recognizing the circumstances of the day and changes in transportation policy, subsidies and protection in the modern era.

The Saskatchewan Minister of Justice, Gordon Wyant, Q.C., introduced a motion in the Saskatchewan legislature in November 2021 to amend the Canadian Constitution as it relates to the Saskatchewan Act, which was accepted by both sides of the legislature and passed unanimously. We have all been informed that it was debated in the other place and unanimously passed in that place yesterday.

This resolution seeks to repeal section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act retroactively to August 29, 1966. This is the date of the crucial correspondence. I believe this reflects the common understanding of the parties at the time they reached that agreement. I believe that the CPR is one of the largest corporations in Canada and should continue to bear its responsibility for provincial taxes just like any other taxpayer.

The CPR benefits from using Saskatchewan’s infrastructure and should contribute to the maintenance of that infrastructure. The CPR should not be able to reap the benefits of operating in Saskatchewan without assuming any tax responsibility.

I believe that considering modern taxation and transportation policies, it is time to eliminate any uncertainty respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway’s tax exemption and to ensure an equal playing field for all companies operating in Saskatchewan.

Section 24 is a relic of an earlier time, an anachronism from the 19th century when Saskatchewan was not treated as an equal partner in Confederation. A perpetual tax exemption is no longer conscionable in the context of the third decade of the 21st century. If the tax exemption persists, it is to the detriment of the people of Saskatchewan, farmers, consumers, producers and businesses, including small businesses, across the province of Saskatchewan.

I ask my colleagues in the Senate to support this motion and to put to an end any uncertainty on this historic inequity. We need to prevent a wealthy corporation from obtaining an unfair competitive advantage in the marketplace.

To continue with a tax exemption in the 21st century, which was granted to the CPR in the 19th century, would be fundamentally unjust, unfair, unreasonable and an undeserved economic hardship on the residents of Saskatchewan. The continuation of section 24 after August 29, 1966, would not be consistent with the Province of Saskatchewan’s position as an equal partner in Confederation.

I hope this will be done with unanimity in the Senate. I encourage my colleagues to move with alacrity on this issue.

I believe that, in fact, it distills to a very straightforward issue and is not as complicated as it may seem. I note that the Westminster parliamentary model was designed to operate with principles of compromise, collaboration and cooperation. This motion introduced in the Senate by the government leader is a clear demonstration, in my opinion, of the cooperation and collaboration by the Government of Canada, Canadian parliamentarians and the Saskatchewan legislature to protect the interests of the Province of Saskatchewan. Thank you.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Honourable senators, I, too, rise to speak to you on Bill S-201, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act for the purposes of lowering the voting age from 18 years to 16. I want to commend Senator McPhedran for her persistency on behalf of young people so that they can have a say in our democracy and welcome our efforts in bringing this amendment for the third time to the chamber.

The history of who gets to vote in Canada has never been set in stone. In 1885, only male, property-owning, British subjects aged 21 and older were eligible to vote. Today, all Canadian citizens aged 18 or older, regardless of gender, income or ethnic origin have the right to vote. Evolution has been at the heart of electoral law.

However, every time voter eligibility has evolved, objections have been raised. For example, before some women were enfranchised in 1918, Senator Hewitt Bostock argued that:

. . . women will be put in the position of receiving something that they do not appreciate, and consequently very probably they will not exercise their right to vote.

I’m sure many women cringe when they read and hear this point of view. I have heard many similar arguments against lowering the voting age to 16.

Instead of telling you the virtues associated with this idea, let me deal with the objections to it.

The first objection is that young people are too young to deal with complex matters such as voting. Plus, they are so young that we cannot reasonably expect them to make informed choices. In addition, their brains are not sufficiently developed at 16 to enable them to make logical choices. And, finally, what would be the point in any case, since young people would only vote the way their parents tell them to?

In other words, they are too young, too immature, too impressionable, too inexperienced to be granted the most valuable right of citizens: the ability to cast a vote.

Instead of giving you just my opinion, let me share the evidence from jurisdictions that have lowered the voting age.

In 2007, Austria enfranchised those aged 16 and older. There is a 13-year body of evidence to draw from. What the data tells us is that the turnout among 16- and 17-year-old Austrian voters has not been substantially lower than the overall turnout rate. Evidently, young people will vote if they are given the opportunity.

Let’s deal with the objection related to immaturity.

Young people cannot be entrusted with the vote because they will make uninformed choices. If given the vote, they may cast their vote for the sake of voting without understanding the implications of the choices they are making. They don’t have enough political knowledge and are not able to tune in to the political discourse of the day. Honourable senators, frankly, if this holds true for young people, I would submit it holds true for many adults as well.

Once again, I looked to countries that have enfranchised youth to determine if this argument holds water. A study conducted in Austria before the 2009 European Parliament election showed that young people voted based on their political preferences just as much as older voters. They were not ignorant of the context — quite the opposite. They had distinct political preferences which they exercised through their vote.

Then there’s the argument that adolescent brains cannot manage the logical processes required for voting, even though they can drive cars. They can join the reserves. They can work. They can pay taxes. But apparently they cannot manage the logical processes required for voting.

According to neuroscientists, in scenarios where tasks are mainly cognitive, adolescents show competence levels comparable to those of adults. This means that when the level of stress is low and there is time to evaluate different choices, young people can make thoughtful decisions. Because voting is an activity that teenagers — and in fact all of us — can think about ahead of time, they are able to make just as reasonable decisions as adult voters.

Finally, regarding parental influence, people ask, “What’s the point of allowing young people to vote, since they will surely vote the way their parents tell them to?” I don’t know about your children, colleagues, but in my family the opposite is almost always true. Kids have perspectives, they have priorities, they have opinions, and they don’t hesitate to tell us — especially us parents — what is wrong with our world. Plus, the influence does not go one way. Young people can and do affect their parents’ civic engagement and attitudes as well. My children have been instrumental in influencing me about global warming and climate change.

Additionally, there are other reasons to look seriously at this proposal. It will have a positive impact on electoral participation in the long run. This is because young people under 18 are most likely to still be in school and to live with their families — two factors that have been shown to encourage voter turnout. In the long term, this higher level of participation at a young age, may then facilitate the development of a lifelong habit of voting. As Rick Mercer, he of the famous rants, has said, “Voting is learned behaviour and it is addictive.” I am a big proponent of lowering the voting age to 16 because we know if people start voting, they will continue to vote their entire life.

It is also important to consider the impact allowing younger people to vote can have on their families, for those young people whose families are not politically engaged. Learning how to vote at school or in their community may help them to empower their family members to vote with them. Youth can be and are incredible behavioural change agents.

We make decisions in this chamber that have significant impacts on the lives of young people — decisions about cannabis, the labelling of food, assisted death, slave labour in our supply chains and, of course, climate change. A common complaint I hear from young people is that the older political elites control their future. Giving them the right to vote at this age will ensure that we hear their views and take them seriously.

Even though I have frequently referred to Austria as one of the jurisdictions that has enfranchised young people, I would also add that the voting age is 16 in Scotland, Brazil, Argentina, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Malta, Jersey, Guernsey, Wales and the Isle of Man. There are also several countries where 16‑year‑olds can vote in certain regional or municipal elections, including Germany, Switzerland, Estonia and the United States. The idea of allowing young people to vote should not seem so unrealistic, considering it is already taking place in many parts of the world.

Young people are campaigning for the right to vote in not only federal elections in Canada but also provincial and municipal elections. The Vote16BC campaign has received broad support, gaining endorsement from the City of Vancouver, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, and the B.C. Teachers’ Federation, among many others. The Samara Centre for Democracy finds that beyond voting, young people are the most active participants in Canada’s civic and political life. They talk about politics more than anyone, are present in the formal political sphere, respond through activism and are leading their communities through civic engagement. Whatever happens at the ballot box, political leaders overlook the passion and engagement of young people at their own peril. It therefore makes sense to leverage this enthusiasm for politics into the ballot box.

I don’t want to make the argument for lowering the voting age without linking it with civic education. I don’t believe you can do one without doing the other. For example, in Austria, the lowering of the voting age was accompanied by awareness-raising campaigns and enhancing the status of civic and citizenship education in schools. In terms of citizenship education, all provinces and territories include this subject area in their curriculums. Some provinces, including Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec, have even created separate civics or citizenship courses. The foundation for leveraging civic education in our system already exists.

Perhaps the best way to conclude my speech is to look to the future. It is young people who will inherit the future, uncertain as it is. It is young people who will live with the results of our choices today. It is young people who will need to fix the mistakes older generations have made. Lord knows, we have made many, and we will likely make many more. It only makes sense to let them into the ballot box, because the future is rightly theirs, not ours. Colleagues, let’s send this bill to committee for thorough study as soon as we are able to. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Galvez, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

Hon. Marilou McPhedran moved 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).

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to second reading of Bill S-201. This bill seeks to lower the federal voting age from 18 to 16.

I can think of no better bill to introduce than this wonderful bill, which seeks to include young Canadians in our democracy and is the product of several years of cooperation between my team and youth advisors, the Canadian Council of Young Feminists, and many other youth organizations across the country and around the world.

[English]

Today, I am pleased to once again begin the second reading of a bill — this time named Bill S-201 — that would amend the Canada Elections Act to lower the voting age in federal elections from 18 to 16. This bill would also make several minor amendments to the same act to harmonize the logistics of voting to reflect the age of 16 and the registration of potential voters for the ages of 14 and 15.

This marks the third time I rise to introduce this bill. And, while I certainly hope we can progress further this time, I tell you with all sincerity that I am deeply worried about our democracy and that, after 50-plus years of the right to vote beginning at 18, I am convinced that this relatively simple bill will help to revitalize our democracy, so this legislation remains a top priority for me.

I am deeply grateful to the many Senate colleagues who believed in the merit of studying this bill, then entitled Bill S-209, and voted to send it to committee in the last days of the previous Parliament, making it the first such bill to progress that far in our Parliament. Whether senators agreed or not with enfranchising 16- and 17-year-old Canadians, it was heartening that most in this chamber recognized the importance of allowing a committee to study, scrutinize and weigh the merits of increasing inclusion of younger Canadians in our electoral system.

To me, it was a clear signal of two things: first, that we recognize and respect the maturity, engagement and importance of young people and that their increased involvement in the electoral process deserves our sincere study and attention, not knee-jerk, dismissive rejection; and second, that we honour our mandated duty to give thoughtful and fair consideration to issues of national significance.

I acknowledge that there are passionate views on both sides of this issue, but, as senators, we owe our sober first, second and, in fact, our every thought and reflection to the legislative proposals that come before us. After listening to colleagues speaking on this bill, I would ask that you vote to support moving this debate forward.

I would also ask, out of respect for the fact that each senator in this place is an intelligent and dedicated Canadian, that the votes on this bill be left to the independent thought of each senator in choosing how they will vote.

Honourable colleagues, this is not really a complicated bill, but it has the potential for tremendous impact as a catalyst and force multiplier in the revitalization of our democracy. The rationale is simple and straightforward: We should lower the voting age to 16 because Canada’s young people are capable, informed and engaged enough to vote. Lowering the voting age will increase voter turnout by providing young people the opportunity to vote for the first time in an environment supported for the most part by their schools and their families.

Additionally, research confirms that those who vote at an earlier age for the first time are more likely to be lifelong voters. It’s lamentably ironic that polling stations are often located in high schools, even as most students must watch from afar as others exercise their right to vote.

These are not anecdotal affirmations. We know these facts because an ever-growing body of quantifiable research in several countries confirms this — research from countries like Austria, that extended voting rights to 16- and 17-year-olds in 2007.

Furthermore, let’s do away once and for all with the hollow platitude that young people are “the leaders of tomorrow” when the truth we all know is that we share leadership with them today, because they are genuine stakeholders in the institutions that govern our country. This is a substantive opportunity for us to extend their rights and extend our arms to welcome them to participate fully in shaping our common future.

When this bill was debated in the previous session, some in this chamber argued that the voting age of 18 years was a de facto, immutable constant. However, we know this is not true. The accepted threshold age for voting is a social and legal construct. The voting age was changed 50 years ago by statute, not requiring a constitutional amendment. Moreover, the current consensus of 18 years is only one step in an evolution that has been more than a century in the making, shifting downward over time in various Western countries from 21 to 18 and now, in some, to 16.

At Confederation, the voting age was 21. However, at that time, only White men who owned property could vote. Women, Indigenous peoples, Black and other people of colour and members of certain religions were prevented from participating in the democratic process. In 1917, with the First World War raging, the right to vote was extended to all Canadian military members, including, with some limitations, women and Indigenous people recognized as Indians under the Indian Act. After certain women in Manitoba were the first in Canada to gain the vote — a hard-won battle — the vote was extended to many more women over the age of 21 in 1918, but still not to Indigenous women.

By 1960, the Canada Elections Act extended the vote in federal elections to people recognized as Indians under the Indian Act. And amidst great national debate about how people so young could not possibly exercise such responsibility, the Canada Elections Act was amended to lower the age of voting from 21 to 18 in 1970, more than half a century ago.

We are on the cusp of another period of change. This bill is a response to ever-growing calls for widening the franchise in Canada. This movement is led by youth, but they are not alone. Frankly, they are a lot more impressive, engaged and responsible than many of us probably were at their age. They are watching. They are waiting to be heard by parliamentarians. Regardless of political affiliation, respectful listening to younger members of our society is what a senator can and should do.

The 1991 Lortie commission is instructive in this regard. Although recommending no alteration to the voting age at that time, it concluded emphatically, at page 57, that it was a decision subject to change:

Since Confederation, the franchise has undergone regular change to include an ever-increasing number of Canadians. As our society continues to evolve, it is possible that a lower voting age will become the focus of stronger demands by those concerned and greater support on the part of Canadians . . . . The voting age is not specified in the constitution and is therefore relatively easy to change. We therefore conclude . . . that Parliament should revisit the issue periodically.

It has been 52 years since the voting age was lowered to 18 years of age, and 32 years since the Lortie commission called for a parliamentary review of that decision.

To highlight how this issue continues to evolve in response to demand, I remind senators that there are presently two bills on lowering the voting age before our Parliament, and that, in fact, over most of the past 20-plus years, there has always been such a bill in play. Internationally, more than 20 countries have implemented a full or limited form of #Vote16 and have observed positive outcomes such as increased civic engagement among youth and people connected to these youth.

#Vote16 campaigns have steadily gained momentum at the provincial and municipal level, notably in British Columbia and Prince Edward Island. And most recently, in December 2021, a group of young Canadians filed an application at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to challenge the voting age in Canada, arguing that the Canada Elections Act, in preventing citizens under the age of 18 from voting in federal elections, is in violation of sections 3 and 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is therefore unconstitutional. It will be some time before these arguments will be determined by a court.

The arguments against lowering the legal voting age to 16 today echo the debates on lowering the voting age to 18 in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. Indeed, they are remarkably similar to the arguments were made against women’s right to vote.

Today’s common criticisms of youth echo those historical debates. Young people are collectively charged with being too uninformed, too unengaged and too immature. Today there is ample evidence to counter all of these stereotypical claims. Indeed, the evidence verifies that 16- and 17-year-old Canadians are more than sufficiently mature, informed and ready to exercise the right to vote in federal elections, commensurate with their 18‑year-old peers and older adults.

Let’s look at some of the concerns and stereotypical tropes raised thus far in the discussion of lowering the voting age to 16.

Maturity: Critics argue that 16-year-olds are not mature enough to vote. But let’s look more closely at the concept of maturity, which is often equated to age.

In a research paper I received from Manitoba high school students Sarah Rohleder and her sister Meaghan, aged 15 and 16 respectively, they made the succinct observation that “Age doesn’t make everyone wiser.”

When we look outside the voting context, Canadian lawmakers have already decided that 16- and 17-year-olds are mature enough to engage in many activities that require maturity and responsible decision making.

Canadian society sees 16-year-olds as mature enough to enroll in the Armed Forces under the reserves. We entrust them to shoulder one of the greatest responsibilities one can have — serving your country and accepting unlimited liability imbued with the ultimate sacrifice for one’s country.

We believe 16-year-olds are mature enough to drive a car, which is fundamentally a killing machine, on the same roads as everyone else. We trust them to get behind the wheel and engage in an activity that is statistically one of the most dangerous acts in everyday life.

We believe that 16-year-olds are mature enough to provide informed consent to having sex and enter into a contract of marriage with the consent of their parents. We defer to the maturity of young people to know their bodies and to have the capacity to speak autonomously for what they do and do not want in the pursuit of their health.

We believe that at age 16 you are old enough to earn an income and be taxed on that income. Governments take money from employed 16-year-old Canadians, create policy and legislation that affects them but without them. Youth as young as 12 years can be charged with criminal offences under the Criminal Code of Canada. At 14 years, they can be tried as adults and sentenced to incarceration. We hold youth accountable and responsible for their actions before the law, and mature enough to bear the consequences and penalties for their actions, yet incapable of casting a ballot — mature criminals but immature voters.

In summary, 16- and 17-year-olds are already considered mature enough to navigate the responsibilities of joining the military, providing sexual consent, driving a car, paying taxes, adult prosecution, getting married and becoming parents. Yet they do not have access to the most fundamental, democratic form of engagement: the right to vote. This contradictory and inconsistent view of youth voting maturity is at odds with the heavy responsibilities that our society has already placed on their shoulders.

Why are we keeping young people away from the heart of our democracy within which the right to vote resides? Instead, we need to harness them as partners in the revitalization of our democracy. This is an essential opportunity to demonstrate to young Canadians the respect they deserve because they have earned it. They are our partners in the stewardship of our country and the institutions that govern us.

Look around you. Although 30 years of age is the threshold to be considered for appointment to the Senate, no one within a decade of that age is a senator. For the first time in our history, Canada has become an old country, by which I mean that older generations outnumber the young. Statistics Canada indicates that this imbalance in the population will only grow and that in less than 10 years seniors could represent almost a quarter of the population.

Let’s think about the fact that the federal debt surpasses $1.2 trillion. It is not our generation that will bear the full, long-term impact of the long recovery ahead.

Informed citizens: Some critics argue that a 16-year-old is not informed enough to cast a ballot. The 16- and 17-year-olds that I know, the 14-, 15-, 16- and 17-year-olds who sent me research papers arguing in favour of my bill, delivered papers that I happily would have given a high grade measured by my standards as a university professor. Based on the evidence, 16- and 17-year-olds are able to make an informed decision based on their values and vision of inclusivity and progress.

Colleagues, my dad first ran as a Conservative at the invitation of the late senator Dufferin Roblin, who was then premier of Manitoba. I knocked on dozens of doors, beginning at the age of 12, for several candidates over the years running for a number of political parties. For those among us who have this experience, we know there is many a voter much older than 16 who is neither mature nor well informed, but we would fight for them to retain their right to vote.

A voter may be unsure about their position on some issues, but that does not prevent them from being informed and effectively casting their ballot. An informed voter understands their own values and can translate those values into their vision for Canada by casting their vote.

You don’t need to take my word for it. Take the evidence of the past decade from researchers who have established that 16- and 17-year-olds are equal to, in some cases superior to, 18‑year‑olds in the ability to vote responsibility.

I’m going to quote from the paper authored by Sarah and Meaghan Rohleder, both too young to vote, where they say that, in fact, federal elections in Austria, Malta and Guernsey — all countries that have already lowered the voting age to 16 — have seen high participation, at about 70%. Austria even tops the Eurobarometer for voter turnout for 15- to 30-year-olds with 79%, while the average voter turnout in Europe is 64%.

A Denmark study found that 18-year-olds are more likely to take their first vote than 19-year-olds. The more months that go by in those years saw a decline in first voter turnout. Lowering the voting age will allow people to vote before they leave high school and their home and establish lifelong voting habits.

Evidence from Austria, which lowered the voting age over 15 years ago, confirms that there is a higher first-time voter turnout that continues over time. It shows that they are ready to contribute sound decision making and quality participation in democracy. The feeling of voting, of stating your opinion, is a strong one. It is a simple act, but one that matters immensely.

In another research paper sent to me by three other Manitoba high school students several studies were cited, including a study published by the London School of Economics that a voter’s first two election cycles are key in determining their future voting habits. It increases twofold for every election in which they vote.

In the words of high school students Avinash, Rooj and Shiven, “That is the recipe for a lifelong voter.”

These student authors also noted that one kind of cognition is called cold cognition, and that is usually what we think about: attention, memory and everyday types of things. It’s really non‑emotional cognition. Then there is hot cognition, which is emotional and social cognition.

For decisions such as voting, our brains use cold cognition. While hot cognition continues developing until the mid-twenties, psychological research demonstrates that cold cognition is fully mature and developed by the age of 16. This bears restating. Viewed clinically via the lens of cognitive neuroscience, 16‑year‑olds are completely intellectually capable of making political decisions with the same mental efficacy as adults.

Colleagues, these are rational arguments and evidence that surpass the anecdotal dismissals of young voters that comprise the bulk of arguments we have been hearing from talk show pundits and other opponents.

A study from the American Academy of Political & Social Science verified the adequate level of political knowledge held by teenagers. Finding that on measures of civic knowledge, political skills, political efficacy and tolerance, 16-year-olds, on average, are obtaining scores similar to those considered adults.

Engaging youth and lowering the voting age are mutually reinforcing actions. In the past 20 years, significant studies attest to the corollary effect of education and formation on voting habits and electoral confidence. Lowering the voting age from 21 to 18, or 18 to 16, triggers a parallel increase in civic education and support for those potential new electors, something that Elections Canada has been doing for more than 100 years.

I would point out that every single research report on lowering the federal voting age, at any age, has been accompanied by the recommendation to increase education, political awareness and acuity, dialogue and therefore capacity.

Most young people are in high school at the age of 16, which provides a supportive framework to absorb the knowledge necessary to make an informed vote. At 16 and 17, Canadians are in a uniquely advantageous position to learn about the political process, the history of our democracy and the importance of voting. I would agree with those who argue that this should, in fact, begin much earlier. They are in an environment where they spend time exploring the complicated issues that face all of us today.

In the classroom, young people have a structured opportunity to discuss the different federal and provincial parties and their positions concerning environmental, economic and social issues of national and global importance. Elections would provide students an opportunity to practise forming and acting on their own opinion, and the school setting provides them the informational resources to make an informed decision when voting.

Effective representation: honourable senators, voting is a simple but powerful act. It is an act that recognizes the credibility of the person’s voice in making a decision about their community and their nation. It allows citizens to participate in the decision-making process and hold accountable those in power. In fact, our young citizens bear the burden of the decisions we are making now. To some extent, it is their future earnings that we are spending now. Giving young people the right to vote will improve our political representation and help leaders make decisions that positively affect young individuals long after they are young.

Young people are not only affected by government policy on education, climate change and other issues. When a young person moves out of their home, they are impacted by housing policy. When a young person commutes, they are affected by transit and infrastructure planning. When a young person is concerned about how they are going to take care of their elders, they are affected by seniors policy. When young people enter the workforce, they are impacted by tax and economic policy. When young people need to buy groceries for themselves or their family, food prices affect them. When looking for medical attention, young people are affected by the funding levels of our health care systems. Many more young people wish to pursue post-secondary education than those who can. They are affected by education funding.

Young people face important and serious issues that intersect with the role of government. As of 2018, people under 18 are more than twice as likely to live in poverty as are seniors. Historically, youth unemployment has been higher than that of the general population. This pandemic has revealed the vulnerability and disproportionate burden young people are being forced to carry. During the first waves of the pandemic, youth unemployment ballooned to 29.4%. January 2022 statistics reveal youth unemployment is at 13.6%: more than double the national rate now.

With the rising impact and costs associated with climate change, young people will pay the most for our inaction on transitioning to a low-carbon economy and the development of infrastructure resilience. The consequences of government action affect this cohort of young citizens who are mature enough to form an informed opinion but are prevented from being able to exercise their democratic right to vote.

Strengthening our democracy: Lowering the voting age to 16 will strengthen our democracy by increasing the number of habitual voters. Studies have shown that voters who vote in their first election are more likely to continue voting in their lifetime. Failure to engage youth in the democratic process can have negative consequences in the long term for the health of our democracy. Voter turnout in federal elections has not once been over 70% within the past 70 years.

When looking at the demographic breakdown of voter turnout, it is easy to cast a disapproving eye on the 18- to 24-year-olds who are often listed as those least likely to vote. According to Elections Canada, Canadians between those ages have shown the least amount of interest in voting, and their 2019 turnout was 57.1%.

The responsibility for engaging young people is shared. There is a degree of responsibility on youth to get involved. After speaking from experience, young people are ready and willing to engage in meaningful conversations about serious issues. However, there is a reciprocal responsibility on us as a society to create opportunities for young people to participate in the democratic system and develop interest in their communities. We should consider too that part of the reason behind youth political disengagement is due to electoral exclusion to begin with. As the youth authors of the National Youth Dialogue on Lowering the Voting Age have concisely stated:

It is incredibly frustrating to be affected acutely by government policies without any way of tangibly influencing policymaking decisions. . . . When you are treated as though your voice does not matter, that acts as an incredible barrier to political expression.

— and participation.

A study of the relationship between voting age and voter turnout in Denmark suggests that individuals are more likely to vote at 16 while their parents’ influence is still stronger than that of their peers. Comparatively, individuals are less likely to vote at 18 when their peers’ influence begins to outweigh that of their parents.

Another study found that the benefit of parenting a newly enfranchised voter is that the parent is more likely to vote in the same election, further increasing voter turnout. Most importantly, the older you become before you cast your first ballot decreases the likelihood you will ever vote for the first time. In a study of Austrian elections, 16- and 17-year-old voter turnout was almost 10% greater than those who were 18 to 20.

Colleagues, the take away is clear. Lowering the voting age will allow young Canadians to engage with the democratic process earlier, is habit forming and increases overall voter turnout in the long term. There is clear evidence of this in Austria, Scotland and Denmark — all countries where lowered voting ages resulted in increased voter turnout.

In 2007, when Austria lowered its voting age to 16, researchers found a first time voting boost in the 16- and 17-year-olds that was greater than those between the ages of 18 and 20. They also found that the turnout in the 16- and 17-year-olds was not substantially lower than the average turnout rate of the entire voting population. Academics in Austria also found that those under 18 were able and willing to participate in politics. Their values were as effectively translated into political decisions as those who were older. The study also found no evidence that a lack of voter turnout was driven by a lack of interest or a lack of ability to participate.

Young people are interested. Young people are willing to participate. Let us take a step to strengthen our democracy by increasing the public’s participation in the electoral process. Let’s bring more people to the table who can help make important decisions about policy and spending that affect them. Let’s trust young people and help them develop into the leaders who will soon be at the forefront of the vast dynamic range of issues facing our society, if they are not already in the forefront now.

Last year, I collaborated with the Alberta-based Centre for Global Education and the Ontario-based Taking IT Global, which undertook an intensive cross-Canada consultation of high-skill students from coast to coast to coast on the topic of lowering the voting age. The final report was released in 2021 and presented to parliamentarians in a series of virtual seminars. Many of you attended, and I thank you for that. Among the report’s findings:

Young people want to vote. We want to be able to share our political beliefs in a way that makes a difference. We are living in this country, have voices, and want to make a change as much or even more than older individuals. The barriers we are facing today can be overcome to allow for more educated and involved youth. We are asking that you consider these barriers and help us to make the changes we feel strongly for. We are the next generation, and allowing us to vote will help to guide the changes occurring in the world towards our future.

To those who are concerned that an influx of young voters will disrupt the current political landscape, let’s run the numbers. Lowering the voting age would be giving around 800,000 people the ability to vote. Canada’s total eligible electorate was just over 27 million people in 2019. Adding the 800,000 16- and 17‑year‑olds to the electorate would represent a 2.9% increase to the total number of eligible voters. Honourable senators, this is a fraction of the total electorate and will not upset Canada’s political competition.

To critics who argue that all youth will simply vote for one particular type of party, the research pushes back against this idea by recognizing it for what it really is: a form of gatekeeping and voter suppression, and of preventing an otherwise capable person from exercising their political preference out of fear that it may not align with our own. Maturity and social responsibility should play the defining role in deciding whether to allow someone to vote, not their personal political beliefs. Such a notion is antithetical to the understanding of democracy itself, where the unfettered voices of the people voting are the source of legitimate power.

However, if this ethical reasoning is insufficient to dissuade critics from making false assumptions as to youth voting biases, then I would like to share another fact. In the recent national student vote mock election, which paralleled the federal election of September 2021, organized by CIVIX in partnership with Elections Canada, in which more than 780,000 students cast a ballot, guess which party received a larger percentage of the popular vote than the governing Liberal Party? Senator Plett, this one is for you — it was the Conservatives.

While there have been previous private members’ bills to lower the voting age to 16, they have all originated in the other place. Bill S-201 gives senators a unique opportunity to frame this debate in its initial stages, which at its core concerns the modernization and revitalization of our democracy.

I wish to remind honourable senators of the argument raised previously that presupposed that the Senate is not the proper forum for this type of bill, and that legislation affecting the Canada Elections Act should originate in the other place. I refute the false premise of that assertion, and I spoke to it in my rebuttal at the time. But it was used erroneously as a major objection to the passage of the bill previously, and I really want to restate my argument with three clear points today.

First, the Senate has every right to introduce, debate, advance and study any type of legislation. Indeed, the Constitution Act, 1982 grants as much legislative power to the Senate as to the House of Commons, with the exception that the House of Commons has the exclusive power to originate appropriation and tax bills. Numerous bills seeking to amend the Elections Act in various ways have originated in the Senate in recent years. All of these were debated openly and went on to pass or fail based on their relative merits as part of the recognized legislative process, either in this chamber or in the other place. In like manner, the members of the other place will eventually have the same opportunity to weigh the merits of this present bill as they see fit, should we send it to them. The same applies for the bill that is currently in the other place. We too will have the opportunity to fully examine that bill, should it reach us.

Second, I would posit that the Senate is actually an ideal place to consider the federal voting age in Canada. By its very design, the Senate is meant to engage in the legislative process in a fashion that is removed from the pressures of the electoral cycle and the partisan politics of the day.

As one of our esteemed colleagues, Senator Harder, argued in the National journal of constitutional law, and I quote:

. . . Because senators were appointed for a long tenure, it was originally expected that they would not place the interests and fate of political parties at the heart of its deliberations. Rather, senators would take an independent and dispassionate approach to the task of legislative scrutiny and debate, and apply their thoughtful judgment unimpeded by electoral or partisan pressure.

Freed as we are from the pressures, constraints and imperatives of the election cycle, we senators may be able to apply a level of nuance and dispassionate distance to voting age reform that may not be possible for a body of elected members who must deal with the biases and pressures, both known and unknown, that attend their elected positions.

Third, the Senate serves an invaluable purpose as a body that can lead substantive, in-depth studies and move forward debates and policy considerations that may well inform future government legislation and public policy. We have seen many examples of this in the last three sessions of Parliament, while I have been a senator. The Senate is a complementing not competing actor in the legislative process, providing value to Canadians. Senate public bills significantly influence public policy by simply being proposed and debated.

Engaging youth; youths are often accused of being disengaged, apathetic, absent. Honourable senators, that’s not what I see. That’s not what I hear. Young people are already engaged in their communities. They get involved in their high schools through clubs and student councils. They are involved in sports teams and drama theatres that put on fundraisers for community initiatives. They volunteer for political campaigns, organize rallies and advocate for causes.

I have encountered a lot of opposition from people who don’t think that young people are thoughtful or knowledgeable enough, but give them the space to talk and you will see an astonishing amount of depth and sophistication in what they have to say. It amazes me to see the way our young leaders are enacting new visions from the grassroots. If you take the time to listen to the young people in your regions, you, too, will be persuaded by their convictions and insight.

Lowering the voting age can expose interested young people to organizations or activities that can produce habits of civic engagement. Creating more opportunities for young people to be exposed to how they can contribute their time and effort to develop their communities is something worth fighting for.

I also want to add here that we need to understand that, in many ways, volunteerism is a luxury that many young people cannot afford. We have a very significant poverty level in this country under which many young people must live.

When I began working with my youth advisors on the idea of lowering the federal voting age, they made it clear to me that a national campaign, galvanized by youth leaders, needed to be created. But they also pointed out to me that there were many young people who would want to be able to participate but who would not be able to participate.

This holds true in terms of community engagement and engagement in other ways in our democracy. Relatively speaking, the right to vote does not take that much time. This is a way, with an equal distribution of the right, for a wide range of young people to be engaged in their communities and in our democracy.

From across Canada, my youth advisors have been diligently researching, consulting and proposing outreach strategies to ensure Canadian youth are involved at all stages of the process of this bill. The #Vote16 steering committee, composed of my youth advisors, has been invaluable for providing thorough feedback and youth perspectives at every stage of this process.

This has been a long time coming from my first year as a senator in 2017, with numerous youth circles across Manitoba and, eventually, other parts of the country. I’m committed to consulting young leaders as this bill makes its way through Parliament and to invite youth, youth-led movements and youth‑focused organizations to reach out.

[Translation]

Bill S-201 will improve Canada’s democratic representation by giving a political voice to people who are affected by government policy, but who have no significant means to influence it. Lowering the voting age will revitalize Canadian democracy by creating an environment where more young Canadians will vote for the first time and will thus be more likely to continue to vote for the rest of their lives, which will increase voter turnout in the long term. This will strengthen youth engagement. If we want young people to be full members of our society, we must make room for them at the table.

[English]

Hon. Rosemary Moodie: Honourable senators, I rise today to lend my support to Bill S-201, which would lower the federal voting age in Canada from 18 to 16.

Colleagues, Bill S- 201 reflects a growing movement to include the voices of young people in our democracy, and I thank my colleague Senator McPhedran for her championship of this bill in the Senate.

In reflecting on Canada’s democracy and institutions, a foundational point has been that every citizen should have a voice. As such, one of the more powerful mechanisms that we can use to exercise this voice is through our ability to vote.

In Canada, voting is considered a right, not a privilege to be earned — a right that is not dependent on gender, race, religion, ethnicity or socio-economic background.

While there are reasonable limits placed on electoral rights, the question we must examine here is this: How does age, as one of the limits that we place on the right to vote, affect our young people in Canada today?

Throughout my work as a youth supporter, taking care of children both before and after joining the Senate, I have found that young people are ready, willing and able to engage in decision making and policy determination.

As Senator McPhedran has mentioned in several of her speeches on this topic, including today, 16- and 17-years-olds already have the capacity to gain employment, pay taxes, drive, join the military, give sexual consent, marry and have children. If we are already trusting young people with these responsibilities and rights, I would also argue that they are ready and able to assume the right to vote and that they are ready to assume the right to influence policy and to participate in a parliamentary process that directly impacts their lives.

Importantly, this movement to give 16- and 17-year-olds the right to vote here in Canada is being led by young people across Canada, not by Senator McPhedran, me or by other colleagues here in the Senate; by other professional groups; or by youth advocates. It is being done by our youth themselves. Their voices are engaging in this discourse. They are clear; they are decisive.

Let me give you some examples. I will quote two young women who are litigants in the court challenge to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice case regarding the unconstitutionality of the voting age. First I will quote Amelia Penney-Crocker, a 16-year-old from Halifax who said:

Youth are the future. But as it stands, we can’t vote for who gets to shape that future – and particularly in this unprecedented climate crisis, lack of youth voting rights might mean that we don’t have a future at all.

Similarly, Katie Yu from Iqaluit says:

Our voices should not be ignored, as we know what actions are needed to address these issues and better the world for future generations, and we are already making change in many ways . . . .

Colleagues, our youth are eloquent, they are confident and they are firmly asking to be included in our democratic process. They are asking to be consulted, and they are taking the lead here. They want to be engaged on the subject of voting, and it is our responsibility as parliamentarians, I would propose, and as policy makers that we elevate their voices in this discourse.

Let us consider in more detail the constitutionality of the current voting age from the perspective of youth themselves, which is the basis of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice court challenge. This court challenge, led by a group of 12- to 18‑year‑olds, proposes that two sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sections 3 and 15, are violated by the current voting age of 18 set out by the Canada Elections Act.

Section 3 of the Charter guarantees that all Canadian citizens have the right to vote in an election. It does not qualify age.

Section 15 highlights that all individuals are equal before and under the law, and guarantees every individual the right to equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, religion, gender, mental or physical disability or age.

Honourable senators, this is an important argument because it highlights the fact that the current voting age restriction is a direct result of the Canada Elections Act, and that this limitation has been subject to change in the past over the years — change that is based mostly on the progressive societal shifts in values that we have seen.

In truth, progressive enfranchisement — or the broadening of voting entitlement — has been a distinct part of the growth of our democracy as we have continually expanded our definition of the rights of the citizen. While we have reflected on those, we have also reflected upon who should remain excluded from this form of civic, political and social participation and, in this reflection, we continue to fail our youth.

I would argue that, as equal citizens of Canada, all youth deserve the right to vote, thereby including them in our move towards a democracy that is more inclusive, equitable and just.

Honourable senators, our youth, our young people under the age of 18, currently participate in other forms of political engagement in our democratic institutions and in our systems. For example, the Liberal Party of Canada, the Conservative Party of Canada, the Green Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party all allow entry of members as young as 14.

Our government has increasingly recognized the importance of elevating youth voices and consulting with young people on policy and programs. Even the Court Challenges Program — reinstated in 2017 and supports individuals and groups to bring cases that challenge perceived constitutional human rights violations before the courts — is accessible to Canadians, regardless of age.

Additionally, our government is actively consulting with youth, individually, in groups and in organizations to inform Canadian policy and decision making.

In February 2018, this government launched a national dialogue with youth to shape Canada’s Youth Policy — a mandate of the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth — yet another example of our growing recognition of young people as equal partners and leaders for tomorrow.

Now, more than ever, as we navigate a global pandemic — precarious financial and socio-political situations, and a recovery that will stretch likely years into the future — the right to participate in our democratic process is even more critical.

Young people have been handling this pandemic alongside us. They face the same challenges, including income insecurity, changing school conditions and precarious work. Young people have risen to the occasion on multiple fronts, working front-line jobs, keeping service industry businesses staffed, actively engaging and advancing our democracy.

We need to consider how we repay our youth for their commitment to family, country and Canada’s democracy. How are we engaging them to become the leaders of tomorrow?

The best way to do this, colleagues, is by respecting their rights to participate fully in our democracy and to encourage their active contribution to our parliamentary process, to the creation of our laws, policies and systems that will affect them and their future.

Lowering the voting age is one of many steps forward that we need to take to support our young people. As we have heard, it will empower 800,000 — yes, 2.9% — 16- to 19-year-olds. This may not be a significant number overall, but it is a significant number of youth who are affected.

As senators, we need to elevate the voices and needs of our Canadian youth because, in our democracy, they are equal partners. They are willing. They are engaged. They are ready to vote.

Thank you, meegwetch.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator McPhedran is asking for five more minutes. Is there any objection? Go ahead, Senator McPhedran.

[Translation]

Senator McPhedran: It’s an honour for me to carry the torch once again for a fair and inclusive democracy.

[English]

Honourable colleagues, our young leaders are mature enough, engaged and informed members of our society. The decision-making table will be a more effective place if they are with us there. They are our partners and crucial contributors in the growth and vitality of our institutions. Extending to them the right to vote is a smart, low-cost, high-yield investment in strengthening our democracy. Please, let’s hear what they and international experts have to share with us at committee. Please join with me in inviting young Canadians to our table. Thank you, meegwetch.

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu moved second reading of Bill S-205, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another Act (interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders).

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to second reading of Bill S-205, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another Act (interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders).

In 2020, 160 women were murdered in Canada, 60% of whom were killed by an intimate partner. In 2021, 26 women were murdered in Quebec, and two thirds of those cases were connected to domestic violence. That is the highest number recorded in Quebec since 2008. The 2021 statistics on spousal homicides in Canada will be available next month, but I can already assure you that based on what we have seen in Quebec, those numbers will top the 2020 numbers.

Honourable senators, I stand before you today with an open heart and a lot of hope as I present, for the second time, a bill that is very close to my heart. I have put all of my energy and strength into this bill over the past three years.

As you know, since my daughter Julie was killed, I have been deeply committed to fighting violence against women. Over the past three years, I have travelled the country and met with hundreds of women. With pain and dignity, they openly shared with me their stories and experiences with the violence they had to endure, often for years.

Their testimony was very emotional, sometimes hard to listen to and often sickening. These women survived attempted murder, aggravated assault, sexual assault and psychological violence. These things happened repeatedly over the course of their ordeal.

These women experienced some very scary moments. Most of them still bear the scars of that violence. Since 1970, we have seen a steady decline in homicide in Canada. However, what makes femicide different from homicide is that the majority of the women were murdered in a family violence situation, after reporting their abuser to the police. More often than not, these murders were foreseeable.

During my consultations, most victims made it clear that the justice system was not there for them when they decided to report their abuser. They took refuge in women’s shelters and ended up in precarious situations where getting back to life in society is often very complicated. Left on their own, they have no confidence in our obsolete and ineffective justice system. They are not guaranteed any protection when they step outside their prison of silence. Some of them paid with their lives.

Diane Tremblay, a tremendously courageous victim of domestic violence, appeared before the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Her testimony was deeply moving. I will read an excerpt where she describes the ordeal she suffered for years. She said, and I quote:

My abuser would put the dresser in front of my bedroom door to keep me from leaving so that he could force me to have sex while I screamed and cried. Sometimes, my children could hear me. . . .

I told them that I was upset and that it wasn’t serious. My abuser even put a lock on the door to keep the children out. He was showing them that he had control over their mother. Julien rebelled a great deal, and rightly so. However, I told him to go away and that I had everything under control. . . .

My abuser threatened to kill us every day, so I kept quiet to protect my children.

This is just one example of the violence Ms. Tremblay experienced for four long years from 2003 to 2007, during which time her abuser sexually assaulted and tried to kill her numerous times, in front of her two children.

What stood out to me the most about her story is that, during those four years, Ms. Tremblay sought help from the justice system several times, but she did not receive any protection from her dangerous abuser. I have heard hundreds of stories like this one over the past three years.

When I had the idea of introducing a bill to combat domestic violence, I gave myself the objective of basing this bill on the testimony of victims. As I have said many times, they were the ones holding my pencil. As the father of a young woman who was murdered, I believe that victims are in the best position to educate the legislator on what needs to be done to effectively amend the existing legislation so that it meets their needs.

I’d like to quote some of what Elizabeth Sheehy, a distinguished professor of law at the University of Ottawa, told the committee during its study of Bill C-75. She said, and I quote:

We see very few convictions for VAW in the criminal courts, for the reasons we are familiar with: women do not report for many good reasons; women’s reports are not properly investigated or pursued; women withdraw from prosecution; men’s excuses and defences prevail.

The testimony of these women certainly shows how ineffective the justice system is, but so do the statistics on family violence.

In its 2019 report, Statistics Canada painted a rather worrisome picture of the evolution of domestic violence in Canada. Intimate partner violence represents 30% of crimes committed in Canada and has gone up 6% in the past year. Of the victims of intimate partner violence, 80% said the violence they experienced was not reported to police; 16% of sexual assaults are committed by an intimate partner; 57% of cases in adult criminal court involve crimes against an intimate partner.

In 60% of intimate partner homicides, there was a history of intimate partner violence. In 50% of these spousal homicides, the perpetrators were repeat offenders already convicted by the justice system for similar crimes.

Most of the women killed in Quebec since the start of the pandemic had reported incidents to police.

Given the statistics I’ve just shared, the Senate of Canada must understand that family violence is a national priority and that we can only address it by thinking about how to reform our justice system to make it tougher on these criminals who destroy the lives of their partners and children.

To achieve this, the responsibility falls to us, the legislators, to reform this system because Canadians, especially Canadian women, have given us senators the power to change the laws in their name, in their interest, when necessary. It is up to us to respect this privilege and to use it to respond to the calls from the thousands of women who desperately hope to see this change and whom we do not have the right to ignore. It is now up to us to act through this bill, which was written by women, for women.

Let me be clear. This bill is not about incarcerating more criminals, but rather about monitoring them when the justice system decides to release them.

On this matter, I’d like to quote the opinion of Justice Locke of the Supreme Court of Canada in Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. of Canada, which was upheld in 2019 by Justice Rowe on behalf of the Supreme Court in R. v. Penunsi:

The power to legislate in relation to criminal law is not restricted, in my opinion, to defining offences and providing penalties for their commission. The power of Parliament extends to legislation designed for the prevention of crime as well as to punishing crime.

My bill amends two sections of the Criminal Code that correspond to the beginning of the legal process, after a victim files a complaint with police, makes a submission in court or is preparing for a trial.

If we look at the spousal homicides committed in Quebec in 2021, we see that most of the time, these women notified the authorities and were killed for making that brave and even audacious choice.

When victims decide to seek justice, they are automatically in danger and become vulnerable to their spouses.

If that spouse is not incarcerated and is on interim release, there is a significantly higher likelihood of the violence escalating and resulting in death.

Furthermore, even if the accused agrees to sign an order to keep the peace, known as an 810, there is no way to guarantee the victim’s safety. As I have often heard from these women, these victims, an order is just a piece of paper. We know this because accused individuals so often violate these conditions with impunity.

I would like to share some of the testimony of the father of Daphné Huard-Boudreault, who was killed by her boyfriend:

On that tragic day, numerous warning signs should have alerted the authorities. Despite several police officers responding to Daphné’s call for help, despite the fact that the man who would go on to murder my daughter had committed numerous offences, that man left by taxi without even being questioned . . . .

Daphné was worried, so she went to the police station after her shift to explain the situation and get help or at least advice. Everyone knows how the story ends. Daphné was murdered.

The purpose of my bill is to be proactive, to save as many lives as possible, because, in the end, a person’s conditions of release are not subject to any monitoring mechanism. That’s why it’s necessary to implement a surveillance mechanism that’s fit for 2022, to provide a credible response.

In drafting this legislation, I reached out to Canadian provinces, in particular those with very high rates of violence. I worked with most of the justice ministers and public safety ministers in those provinces in order to tailor my bill to their realities. I can now count on the support of Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick.

These provinces support this bill because the approach I’m advocating provides them with effective tools to address this scourge.

On the issue of technical monitoring, I looked to countries like Spain and France, which have introduced electronic monitoring devices.

I commend the bill brought forward by the Province of Quebec, which requires offenders who have been found guilty of domestic violence and released from a provincial prison to wear an electronic monitoring bracelet.

In December 2022, 650 offenders released in Quebec will wear an electronic bracelet.

The federal government must now take responsibility and pass this bill in order to complement the provincial legislation. Quebec, for example, will require an electronic bracelet solely for those released from a provincial prison, so those awaiting trial who are released from a federal prison will not fall under Quebec’s bill.

In my bill, I want to add the option for judges to require offenders to wear an electronic monitoring device at every stage.

Initially, when the police arrest a person suspected of committing an offence related to domestic violence, in most cases, they would have the option of releasing the accused pending his appearance before a judge. At this stage, the police have the option of issuing a promise to appear with certain conditions that the accused has to abide by. With the amendment of subsection 501(3) of the Criminal Code, the police will be able to include the wearing of an electronic monitoring device in these conditions, if they consider it necessary to protect the victim’s life.

Furthermore, the bill would add the wearing of an electronic monitoring device to the conditions for making an interim release order pending trial, which corresponds to section 515 of the Criminal Code. When an accused makes their first appearance in court, the judge determines whether the case will go to trial. If the answer is yes and the judge decides to make an interim release order, this bill would allow the judge to require the accused to wear an electronic monitoring device, if the judge determines that the victim’s safety and life are at risk.

Lastly, I want to add the condition of wearing an electronic monitoring device to the new section 810 peace bond that I am proposing and that I will describe later in my speech.

Electronic monitoring helps establish a safety perimeter between two intimate partners. In the event that the offender breaks the safety perimeter, the victim and the authorities are immediately alerted. This gives the victim a chance to get her children to safety and allows authorities to intervene quickly to prevent a tragedy. This information can also be invaluable for the police, in order to prove that the perpetrator did not respect the conditions of his order. Otherwise, it always comes down to the abuser’s word against the victim’s.

Spain, for example, adopted a policy to fight domestic violence in 1997 after a woman was burned alive by her partner. After various bills were introduced, Spain decided to bring in electronic monitoring bracelets in 2009.

I relied on the author Lorea Arenas Garcia, a well-known academic in Spain who has done extensive work on electronic monitoring. Her work showed us that Spain has an effective national strategy for combatting domestic violence. The Spanish legislation, the comprehensive law against gender-based violence, created specialized domestic violence courts with specially trained judges. Quebec’s Bill 24 created a similar kind of court specializing in domestic violence. I would like to quote some of Ms. Garcia’s comments:

There is a widespread perception among police officers and legal experts and within departments that this measure may be an effective tool for combatting violence against women. Public debate on electronic monitoring has focused on its ability to prevent deaths. Practitioners find this tool to be 100% effective, and feminist organizations and some media are calling for even broader use of electronic monitoring tools.

Over a three-year period, Spain fitted almost 800 women and 800 men with electronic bracelets, and then supplied 800 warning devices for the women. There were three deaths, two of which were homicides, out of 800 women. The bracelets have already proven to be effective.

France’s National Assembly has passed an act that is similar to the one Spain passed in late 2019 introducing the electronic bracelets. It was proposed by member Aurélien Pradié. Here is an emotional passage from the speech he gave to the French National Assembly:

No politician, government official or legislator can make excuses and claim they are unaware. None of us can say that we need more time to think about solutions. The time has come for strong action. Not tomorrow, not the day after tomorrow, but today. This bill, which we have the honour of presenting to the National Assembly, certainly does not solve everything, but it can respond to the vital urgency, to the appeals of these women, of their loved ones, of associations on the ground, of experts who for months have been calling for and demanding new measures to protect women and keep them safe from being murdered by an intimate partner. Today we must answer those calls. Everyone here has a collective responsibility.

We also have a collective responsibility to take a stand on violence, which affects too many women in Canada.

The amendment to section 515 of the Criminal Code set out in this bill would change the law in several different ways.

First, it would ensure that victims are consulted and can express their needs and concerns about their safety and the conditions to be placed on the offender when he is released.

When a judge makes a decision about the conditions to be imposed on someone accused of an offence where violence was used, threatened or attempted against their intimate partner, they must consider the victim’s opinion. The goal is to put the victim back at the centre of the judicial process in intimate partner violence cases, in accordance with the right to participate enshrined in the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights.

I would like to remind senators that it is often already very difficult for victims to take legal action. That’s why guaranteeing their safety and listening to what they need when they decide to take that step is crucial.

This amendment is consistent with the directives for Crown prosecutors set out in the Public Prosecution Service of Canada Deskbook. Here is an excerpt:

Crown counsel should be aware of the interest of victims and witnesses in the release of the accused on bail, particularly in situations where the conduct reflected in the charges may imply a potential threat to the victim or witness.

The second condition I wish to add will give the judge the option of ordering province-approved addiction treatment or treatment for family violence under the court’s supervision. Each case is different, and we must give judges the necessary discretion to decide whether the accused needs treatment for a violence problem for the sole purpose of ensuring the safety of the victim and breaking the vicious circle of domestic violence.

The other proposal in the bill has to do with providing a copy of the order. The judge must first verify that the intimate partner of the accused has been informed of their right to request a copy of the interim release order provided for under subsection 515(14) of the Criminal Code.

This amendment would uphold the principles of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, namely, the right to be informed of the accused’s conditions of release. The act already stipulates that the victim may be provided this information upon request.

However, based on the testimony I heard, I think the nuance here is that victims are often not made aware of their rights and, as a result, they are left to their own devices in a process that is difficult to understand. This point would address one of the recommendations made by the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime.

The last element of my bill concerns peace bonds under section 810 of the Criminal Code, “sureties to keep the peace.” A judge can order the accused to sign a peace bond, and the individual must agree to comply with the conditions set out in this bond.

In Canada, section 810 of the Criminal Code is a general instrument of preventive justice that dates back to 1918. It creates a source of criminal liability. Breaching any of the conditions imposed in the peace bond can result in the defendant being charged under section 811 of the Criminal Code and, if convicted, being sentenced to a maximum of four years in prison.

In 2020, the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale and researchers at the Université du Québec à Montréal presented a report on section 810 of the Criminal Code.

The report stated that section 810 of the Criminal Code is being used more and more in the context of domestic violence. The report made the troubling observation that using the 810 recognizance order would be a good compromise for settling cases of domestic violence by avoiding legal proceedings and, therefore, a trial. Section 810 is being used more and more, and trials are becoming shorter and shorter.

The section 810 peace bond is an order that can be used for general matters that do not at all reflect domestic violence. It is, by definition, not designed for a domestic violence situation involving a specific context where criminal acts are perpetrated. Consequently, misuse of this peace bond is dangerous to the safety of victims, as highlighted by this passage of the report:

Regarding the usefulness of the conditions imposed by means of a section 810 order or in the context of a release pending trial, many women noted that they are useful only if non-compliance with the conditions is detected, taken seriously and punished. Otherwise, they are only symbolic, serving as a smokescreen that contributes to a false sense of security and cynicism with respect to the justice system.

I would like to continue by providing a very concrete example that took place two years ago. In December 2019, in Montreal, Ms. Khellaf, a 42-year-old mother, and her two children were murdered by the father, Nabil Yssaad. He will never be brought to justice because he took his own life.

Ms. Khellaf had been a long-time victim of domestic violence. She had finally sought justice. The year before, the murderer had been charged with assault and assault with a weapon against the victim. A few days before the tragedy, Mr. Yssaad signed a section 810 peace bond, but the conditions imposed on him were not sufficient to deter him from committing a triple homicide. This is a sad story that unfortunately happens far too often.

Manon Monastesse, the director of the Fédération des maisons d’hébergement pour femmes de la région de Québec, said that peace bonds often give victims a false sense of security. To rectify this problem with our justice system, I am proposing the creation of a new order specifically for family violence, which I think will enable judges to issue orders that are tailored specifically to the safety issues that victims face.

I’d like to add that I am not inventing anything new here. There are already other 810 orders in the Criminal Code for specific cases. There is an order associated with section 810.2 of the Criminal Code, “Where fear of serious personal injury offence,” that is commonly used and is similar to the one I am proposing, and there is also an order under section 810.011 regarding terrorism.

The first change with respect to the general order has to do with the duration of recognizance orders. Under the Criminal Code, an accused can be under an order for one year. We will extend that to two years to prevent victims from having to apply for the order to be renewed the following year.

The second change applies to reoffenders. If a person was found guilty of a similar offence in the past, the order will last three years instead of the two provided for in the Criminal Code.

If an accused refuses to comply with the conditions of the order, he may be sentenced to two years in prison instead of the one year currently provided for in the Criminal Code.

We will also include the condition that the judge may impose the same measures as those we added to section 515, namely the electronic bracelet and court-supervised addiction treatment or family violence counselling programs.

Our last measure has to do with changes to the recognizance order conditions. We will include a section that will ensure the victim can be consulted in the event that any change is made to the recognizance order, at the request of the attorney general or the offender, that would affect the victim’s safety and security. Until now, victims have not been consulted when the offender requested changes to his conditions. Several victims have seen their abuser reappear because he requested a change to his conditions that was approved by the court, unbeknownst to the victim.

Honourable senators, I think it is vital that this bill pass through the various stages of the parliamentary process to become a law that will guarantee that the voices of victims of family violence are clearly heard and that these individuals are better protected. The statistics show that there is an important and urgent need to reform our system. Let’s not allow this situation to continue when we have the tools at our disposal to change things and all we have to do is use them. The legislation needs to be adapted to the realities. That is an objective that this new bill tries to meet. I therefore appeal to each senator’s sense of responsibility.

Finally, I would like to quote Justice Laskin of the Ontario Superior Court in his ruling in Budreo. He said, and I quote:

The criminal justice system has two broad objectives: punish wrongdoers and prevent future harm. A law aimed at the prevention of crime is just as valid an exercise of the federal criminal law power under s. 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867, as a law aimed at punishing crime.

Honourable senators, I will end my speech at second reading with this comment. In domestic violence trials, judges are basically facing potential murderers. In most cases, they decide to let these abusers go free.

The fundamental question that we must ask ourselves is this: What is the justice system’s responsibility? If we look at what’s been done in many other countries, I think this bill answers that question. Now, the responsibility is on you, and I urge you to quickly send this bill to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for study in order to save lives.

Thank you very much.

Hon. Lucie Moncion moved second reading of Bill S-215, An Act respecting measures in relation to the financial stability of post-secondary institutions.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise at second reading as the sponsor of Bill S-215, the Post-Secondary Institutions Bankruptcy Protection Act.

The post-secondary sector is an industry that generates $55 billion a year and represents roughly 2.4% of the national economy. The contribution of the post-secondary sector to Canada’s economy is considerable, and for francophone minority communities, it is colossal. Post-secondary institutions play an indispensable role in the economic, social and cultural development of communities. We must act now to save communities from the same fate as northern Ontario, with the restructuring of Laurentian University under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act. The case of Laurentian University is a first. It sets a dangerous precedent, but above all, it is a call to action.

Well before the health crisis, many post-secondary institutions were in a precarious financial situation. We know that some of them have been suffering from chronic structural and operational underfunding for years. To cope with this situation, these institutions turn to volatile sources of funding and are often forced to make budget cuts that affect the programs they offer and jobs.

[English]

I am particularly concerned about the institutions serving francophone minority communities, which have the additional responsibility of fostering the vitality of the French language and francophone cultures across Canada. I’m thinking in particular of Laurentian University, Université de Moncton, the University of Alberta’s Campus Saint-Jean, Université de Saint-Boniface, Université de l’Ontario français, University of Sudbury, Université de Hearst and so forth.

The cuts at Laurentian University are compromising access to post-secondary education in French in northern Ontario. French programs that have been cut include engineering, political science, law, education, history, philosophy, literature, drama and midwifery.

Despite the emergence of institutions by and for francophones such as the University of Sudbury, which has clear unified community support, governments have been slow to act. For example, the Government of Ontario took over one year to intervene in the case of Laurentian University and only intervened because it was compelled to. Laurentian University was losing its operational funding, which would have accelerated the actual bankruptcy. This waiting game lasted a year with the Government of Ontario. In the meantime, the francophone community’s next generation is being undermined with devastating consequences to ensure that minority language communities have ownership and control over the institutions that support a strong and prosperous francophonie.

[Translation]

In an interview with ONFR+, Carol Jolin, president of the Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario, reacted to the significant drop in applications to Laurentian University from francophones by saying, and I quote, “The message is clear: Our Franco-Ontarian youth have lost faith in Laurentian University.”

People no longer say “francophones at Université Laurentienne;” they just say “Laurentian University.” He also said, and I quote, “The exodus of northern youth to other parts of the province and the country has begun.”

I recently spoke to the president and vice-chancellor of the Université de Moncton, Denis Prud’homme. He explained that his institution runs a structural and operational deficit every year. Because of inflation, the Université de Moncton has to pay an extra $2 million to $3 million per year, which is not covered by the provincial funding framework. The deficit is already starting to affect programs, human resources, infrastructure and student services, including mental health. The Université de Moncton needs a solid funding base because project-based funding may be good for governments, but it’s not sustainable for small institutions. Competitions for federal subsidies have criteria that favour big universities because they have the capacity and resources to do large-scale projects.

For an institution that has few resources to begin with, project‑based funding requires additional effort to prepare and manage the project. Plus, it’s all temporary. He confided in me, saying:

It’s exhausting, destabilizing and unpredictable. We need core funding with cost-of-living indexing.

[English]

Looking at Laurentian’s situation, President Prud’homme told me that the only thing keeping the University of Moncton from a similar fate is the fact that every year, they take the difficult decisions to make cuts.

Out West, the situation at the University of Alberta’s Campus Saint-Jean is unsustainable. There, the money that the university gets in tuition is not based on actual enrolment numbers but instead on a quota. As a result, Campus Saint-Jean does not receive funding for at least one third of its enrolment. On top of the chronic operational and structural underfunding that has been going on for several years, the Alberta government announced budget cuts in 2019 and prohibits post-secondary institutions from using the reserve funds. For the University of Alberta, this is a cut of 34%.

For at least the past two years, the university has been going through a restructuring process and making several budget cuts that threaten Campus Saint-Jean’s very survival.

[Translation]

I recently spoke with the dean of Campus Saint-Jean, Pierre‑Yves Mocquais. He explained, and I quote:

There is a real trend towards centralizing the university, and this is constantly encroaching on the campus’ autonomy through a gradual erosion of its capacity to function as a francophone institution.

Campus Saint-Jean is treated as though it’s just another department, which is completely unrealistic considering its francophone mandate.

This crisis, which continues to this day, has led to civic action. The community is mobilizing to put pressure on governments through the “Save Saint-Jean” campaign. The budget cuts required to maintain the financial viability of the institution threaten the existence of entire programs and may force students to complete their degrees in English. The university has already laid off more than 1,000 people, and the layoffs continue.

In what the president of the Association canadienne-française de l’Alberta, or ACFA, described as a David-versus-Goliath battle, ACFA is advocating on behalf of the community to save Campus Saint-Jean by suing the Government of Alberta and the University of Alberta. To illustrate how lopsided this battle is, ACFA requested between $1 million and $1.3 million for the 2020 school year, while the Alberta government spent $1.5 million on legal fees to avoid providing this funding.

Several sectors have been affected by the pandemic, but it is too early to determine its actual impact on the financial viability of the post-secondary education sector in Canada. However, we have noted certain effects, particularly on the share of revenue generated by foreign students’ tuition fees, which dropped considerably because of the pandemic.

Bill S-215 seeks to prevent post-secondary institutions from becoming financially unstable and to improve the position of those on the brink in order to ensure the vitality and development of communities across the country.

[English]

In my speech today, I will first provide a general overview of post-secondary funding in Canada. I will then explain how funding issues are compounded when it comes to institutions providing French language minority education. I will bring attention to the problems with the legal status quo, including the ability of universities and colleges to make use of bankruptcy and insolvency law. This will provide context for my legislative proposal, Bill S-215, which calls for concrete and effective government action to address this crisis and prevent the use of inappropriate legal tools as part of the restructuring process. I will conclude by presenting some of the solutions proposed by stakeholders.

Funding the post-secondary sector. What does the sector’s funding look like and why is it cause for concern? The State of Postsecondary Education in Canada, 2021 report by Higher Education Strategy Associates reveals various trends seen in the sector over the past 20 years. Post-secondary funding comes from three main sources: government grants, tuition fees and private sources. Prior to the 2008-09 fiscal crisis, the three main sources of funding for post-secondary education grew by 5% per year on average. After the crisis, tuition fees, particularly those by international students, have played a significantly more important role. Tuition fees went from accounting for 19% of funding in 2000-01 to 29% in 2018-19.

What about government funding? Over the past 20 years, the portion of funding coming from provincial governments has decreased. Nationally, the provincial share, which was 43% in 2000-01, dropped to 35% in 2018-19. Federal funding has been stagnant since about 2008. In real dollars, funding for the Official Languages in Education Programs has been in steady decline.

The important thing to note is that proportionately, we are seeing the government steadily backing away from the post‑secondary sector. The decline is largely what is behind the sector’s precarious financial situation.

[Translation]