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]

Hon. Lucie Moncion: Honourable senators, the important thing to note is that, proportionally, we are seeing the government steadily backing away from the post-secondary sector. This decline is largely what is behind the sector’s precarious financial situation.

Institutions are increasingly vulnerable to the ups and downs of Canada’s economy, and it is being left up to them to find reliable and sustainable sources of funding.

Then, on top of an already precarious financial situation, came the pandemic. According to the data collected by Statistics Canada and analyzed by the Library of Parliament, pandemic-related health measures have resulted in a significant decline in revenue for many universities, particularly from ancillary services. Examples include student housing, food services and parking.

Some universities anticipated deficits due to the pandemic and announced plans to cut operating costs. This was the case for the University of Ottawa, the University of Manitoba, Laurentian University, the University of Alberta and McGill University, among others.

In Ontario, tuition fees are replacing government funding as the primary source of revenue for colleges. In general, universities that rely heavily on international students for funding have suffered the most, such as those in British Columbia and Ontario.

In contrast, universities in Newfoundland and the territories are entirely publicly funded, shielding them from some of the negative impacts of the pandemic. Quebec’s universities are also predominantly publicly funded.

Clearly, larger institutions with robust funding structures and longer histories in communities able to support them have been faring better despite the pandemic. Typically, these are institutions serving the English-speaking majority.

[Translation]

I will now talk about funding for institutions serving official language minority communities. Things get more difficult when it comes to institutions that provide French-language programming in minority communities.

Canada’s 22 French-language colleges and universities face significant financial hardship. According to the Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne, or ACUFC, and I quote:

Structural challenges mean that French-language post‑secondary education in the FMCs does not benefit from conditions equivalent to those granted to the English-speaking majority.

The communities are waiting to see a move toward real equality in education.

Lynn Brouillette, Chief Executive Officer of the ACUFC, is asking us to come up with solutions to ensure the long-term sustainability of the sector. She said, and I quote:

Ad hoc measures are no longer enough to ensure the strength and well-being of this sector, which makes an enormous contribution to the vitality of francophone minority communities. The time has come to bring together those who care about the French-language post-secondary education sector in order to come up with sustainable solutions.

The president and lead researcher at Sociopol, Mariève Forest, who studied the French-language post-secondary education sector, said, and I quote, “Funding is the biggest challenge to the sustainability of French post-secondary education in minority communities.”

Volatile revenue is a threat to the sector’s long-term survival and has a direct impact on community vitality. The researcher noted that, in 2018-19, an estimated 30,000 francophones did their post-secondary studies in English, in part because of lack of access. At Laurentian University, the number of students wanting to study in French fell by 52% — 52% is a lot at Laurentian University — and that is for the northern Ontario campus.

Institutions serving francophones in a minority context are more fragile because they’re smaller. These institutions generally came along fairly recently, most of them in the 2000s, when the federal government introduced its Action Plan for Official Languages. Volatile revenue in that situation can mean the end of these institutions and especially the end of French-language programming.

Chiara Concini, a student in the second year of her B.A. at the University of Alberta’s Campus Saint-Jean, put it like this in an interview with Radio-Canada:

Now I can’t even finish my B.A. entirely in French. . . . Next year I’ll have to take some classes in English because they’re mandatory but not available at Saint-Jean.

[English]

This gap in the minority language education continuum is tragic. For francophones who have studied in French all their lives, being forced to study in English because of a lack of access is troubling.

The government’s increasingly hands-off approach forces a vision on post-secondary institutions that is strictly profit-driven, ignoring the other functions of post-secondary education that benefit communities. Institutions will, for example, focus on attracting greater numbers of international undergraduate students while neglecting to invest in research and less profitable programs, including French-language programs that typically have lower enrolment.

This growing privatization of post-secondary education is explained in the 2021 study on the “State of Postsecondary Education in Canada, 2021” by Higher Education Strategy Associates that I cited earlier. This is what the study says about the general trend towards privatization:

. . . Canada is moving further from a Western European model of a largely publicly funded system towards the model of other anglophone countries where postsecondary education may be mostly publicly owned, but it is ”publicly-aided“ rather than ”publicly-financed.”

[Translation]

This growing trend of relying on sources of private funding and tuition fees disproportionately disadvantages French-language minority institutions, which necessarily serve a smaller client base.

Charles Castonguay reminds us of the importance of demographics for the French fact in Canada. He said the following in his article entitled “L’intérêt particulier de la démographie pour le fait français au Canada,” or the significance of demographics for the French fact in Canada, and I quote:

The number shapes . . . virtually every aspect of life in French in Canada, from the quality of the spoken language to the availability of services in French, to the rate of anglicization and even to the way francophones perceive themselves and act as such.

I will step away from my text and tell you my story. I studied French my whole life, and I fought hard to study at university. I was living in the regions where we did not always have access to French-language universities. I took correspondence courses, I studied at Laurentian University, I moved to Sudbury to study in French.

During my French courses, when I was given books in English, I always complained saying, “I am taking a French course and the material is in English. Why is this material not available in French?”

I worked in a francophone community my entire life. That is very rare. I am a bit of an anomaly in the Ontario system. I’ve worked all over Ontario and always in French. I’ve tried to instill these values in my family, in the hopes that they would come to respect and understand the importance of the francophonie and the French language and also the importance of supporting our French-language institutions, through education, buying books, and so on. It’s such an important part of preserving a language. In my case, I was helping preserve the French language. I’m an anomaly in Ontario, I would say, since I’ve worked for 38 years exclusively in French. I don’t know whether there is anyone else in Ontario who has done that.

Universities and colleges in francophone minority communities do extra work to support the survival of the francophonie. To ensure that students can learn in French, it’s important that the university or college environment can foster linguistic security and that students can live a student experience in French outside the classroom.

However, the funding does not reflect the specific needs of minority communities and the long-standing catching up that needs to be done. In order to access additional funding, institutions must negotiate with their respective provincial governments. I will let you imagine how that works out with hostile governments or governments that don’t understand the challenges that francophone minority communities face. If you only knew how many university and college presidents are forced to lobby decision makers to get a little money so that the schools can meet the bottom line — it’s unbelievable.

Recruiting French-speaking students is also more complex. Francophone populations are often spread out and isolated. In terms of international recruitment, the centralized administrations of primarily anglophone institutions offering French-language programming do not always value or understand the importance of recruiting from francophone countries. This is a major challenge for Western Canadian institutions. The federal government also has a role to play here with respect to francophone immigration and recruitment.

Francophone communities are in the best position to understand their needs and challenges in post-secondary education. The example of Laurentian University has shown us that without the “by us, for us” approach, francophones risk being the worst hit when budget cuts need to be made. The restructuring of Laurentian University has been damaging in many ways, but francophones have suffered the most.

Let’s now turn our attention to the blind spot in post-secondary funding.

Researchers who study the issue of post-secondary funding and other stakeholders have long denounced, and with good reason, a lack of transparency and accountability with respect to federal transfers and provincial funding under agreements seeking to enhance the vitality of francophone minority communities.

[English]

It is important to understand that the financial picture of the sector I have presented is only a summary. It is incomplete not just to keep my speech from running too long but also in terms of academic and stakeholder knowledge. There are a lot of unknown variables, making it difficult to come up with solutions. We lose track of the funding when it is sent from the federal government to the provinces, and things get even murkier when it is sent to the various institutions.

For bilingual institutions in minority communities, we have no way of knowing whether, for example, federal money is actually being used to fund minority-language post-secondary education. Transfers from headquarters to the various programs or campuses are another unknown variable.

Funding earmarked for post-secondary education in the francophonie needs to be documented. The lack of transparency and accountability in federal transfers leaves many unanswered questions. This explains why the communities are reluctant to get excited about blank cheques sent to the provinces and why there were mixed reactions from the communities to the federal government’s announcement last August of $121.3 million to be invested over three years in support of minority-language post‑secondary education. Communities are calling for the ability to track the money and to hold governments accountable for the support they claim to provide.

[Translation]

Transparency and accountability are part of the solutions that can significantly help the financial viability of post-secondary institutions, and the federal government is fully aware of this. There is a way for the government to respect provincial jurisdictions while ensuring that its investments on behalf of the francophonie get to the right place, in accordance with its constitutional obligations.

At this time, I would like to speak to you about Bill S-215, which has two specific objectives.

First, it seeks to make the federal government responsible for finding solutions by requiring that it consult key stakeholders, specifically the communities and post-secondary institutions and, in particular, provincial governments.

Second, it seeks to prevent these institutions from having recourse to the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, the CCAA, or the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to prevent situations similar to what happened with Laurentian University.

The bill proposes to require the designated minister to develop federal initiatives designed to reduce the risk that an institution becomes bankrupt or insolvent; protect students, faculty and staff in the event that an institution becomes bankrupt or insolvent; and support communities that would be impacted, if necessary. The minister must develop solutions in consultation with institutions, provincial and municipal governments, groups and associations of students, faculty and staff, and parties advocating on their behalf. Development of the proposal must be completed as soon as practicable, but no later than one year after the day on which it comes into force. The proposal must be tabled both in the House of Commons and the Senate and it must be made public.

The federal government could do the minimum or it could exceed our expectations. The provincial governments and the institutions must also be prepared to work with the federal government to find solutions. Stakeholders must all assume their responsibilities and work together in the best interests of the sector and their communities.

Second, the bill prevents the use of inappropriate legal tools, such as the CCAA or the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

[English]

Facing insolvency, Laurentian University filed for protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act on February 1 to begin a restructuring process. The fact that a publicly funded educational institution can use this act is appalling and sets a dangerous precedent.

However, Laurentian University’s situation is not unique. The case of Laurentian University is a wake-up call because this underfunding threatens the economic, social and cultural vitality of the communities as well as the constitutional rights of official language minorities.

To address this issue, the bill amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act in clause 5 and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act in clause 6 to exclude post-secondary educational institutions from the definitions of “corporation” and “company” under those acts respectively. The amendments to the BIA and CCAA only come into force on a day or days fixed by order of the Governor-in-Council, on recommendation of the minister that would be designated by the Governor-in-Council for the purposes of the act in clause 2. It would therefore prevent post-secondary institutions from using the BIA and CCAA when insolvent or bankrupt.

These legal tools are inadequate for this sector, more importantly, considering that their implementation — as we have seen with Laurentian University — is detrimental to the social, economic and cultural vitality of communities, especially in a minority context.

The bill provides a lot of flexibility to the government but forces it to act to address pressing issues. It also provides the government with a framework within to work and important elements to consider.

Among the possible solutions for the federal government to consider the ACUFC proposes the creation of a new permanent support program for francophone minority post-secondary institutions that would allow the federal government to intervene in needs categories related to areas under federal jurisdiction.

The government could also create a regime separate from the CCAA and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to govern the restructuring of post-secondary institutions that run into difficulty. The restructuring process should consider the particular characteristics of the institutions concerned, including its role in serving official language minority communities and its importance to their vitality. It should promote a restructuring plan that considers the unique functions of post-secondary institutions and should include communities and other stakeholders in decision making. In other words, the interests of an institution that delivers programming in French cannot be represented by a Bay Street law firm that has no understanding of the language rights at stake.

Campus Saint-Jean is the only institution in Alberta that trains French-language teachers, a function essential to implementing section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. According to counsel for Campus Saint-Jean, the right to an elementary and secondary education of a quality truly comparable to that of the majority is rendered meaningless if, in practice, the post-secondary infrastructure in place does not make it possible to train teachers and other staff needed to actually implement section 23.

[Translation]

Section 23 of the Charter guarantees a sliding scale of rights to instruction in the minority language. In her ruling regarding the Rose-des-Vents school in Vancouver, Justice Andromache Karakatsanis stated, and I quote:

What is paramount is that the educational experience of the children of s. 23 rights holders at the upper end of the sliding scale be of meaningfully similar quality to the educational experience of majority language students.

If we do not have teachers who have been trained in French‑language post-secondary institutions, how can we guarantee the exercise of these rights? We need to do everything in our power to keep Campus Saint-Jean from meeting the same fate as Laurentian University. The constitutional rights of francophones are in jeopardy.

To conclude, the bill that I am proposing seeks to make the federal government accountable and responsible for finding solutions and making decisions to help a sector in difficulty. The post-secondary institutions of official language minority communities are fundamental to their sustainability and survival.

Esteemed colleagues, we must act now if we are to protect the gains we have made with post-secondary education and to enhance the vitality of the Canadian francophonie. The survival of the linguistic and cultural heritage of our communities depends on it. Too often we end up preaching to the choir about the francophonie. However, we all have a responsibility to the Canadian francophonie and to the future of post-secondary education in French. The Commissioner of Official Languages wrote the following in a report entitled Learning from the Past, Shaping the Future: 50 Years of Official Languages in Canada:

Our unity is fragile, however. A lack of vigilance has led to complacency, which in turn has led to the erosion of language rights. And the less we talk about it, the more erosion will occur. But Canada needs to work on its own advancement as a nation. The recent actions of some governments are alarming, yet the greatest threat to Canada’s linguistic duality is indifference.

Linguistic duality is not just for Francophones, nor is it just for Anglophones in Quebec. It’s a valuable asset that belongs to all Canadians.

Colleagues, as senators, we have a duty not to remain indifferent to the needs of minorities. My Bill S-215 is a response to the heartfelt pleas from francophone minority communities. I am sharing the burden our communities have been carrying for far too long. Thank you for your attention.

Senator Moncion: Yes.

Hon. Paula Simons: Thank you very much, Senator Moncion. I’m glad you mentioned Campus Saint-Jean, which is dear to my heart.

[English]

But I want to understand exactly how this bill would help an institution like Campus Saint-Jean which is part of a larger university. Federal funding for Campus Saint-Jean; funding levels were frozen in 2002-03. Since that time, the francophone population of Edmonton and Alberta has skyrocketed. I believe at the time the funding was frozen we had something like 3,500 or 4,000 students enrolled in francophone schools in Alberta. Now it is closer to 10,000.

So I’m struggling to understand precisely how this bill would help an institution like Campus Saint-Jean, which is part of a larger anglophone university. It is never going to go bankrupt. It is never going to go out of business. Is there something in the legislation, a subtlety I’m missing, that would compel the federal government to increase funding for francophone universities outside of Quebec?

[Translation]

Senator Moncion: In the case of Campus Saint-Jean, if we look at the enrolment, there are currently close to 750 students, but it gets funding for only 450 students. The campus gets no funding at all for the other 300 students. It is already underfunded by the provincial government.

The other thing you asked is how the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act can help. That’s the point of this bill. We want provincial governments to be accountable for their education responsibilities toward both anglophones and francophones.

Campus Saint-Jean’s situation is unusual because there is a main campus, which is anglophone and provides funding for the francophone group, but when there are cuts to be made all across campus, they cut deeper for the francophone campus.

One thing the University of Alberta can do is gradually reduce the resources available to Campus Saint-Jean so that it can no longer function. In the comments received from Dean Mocquais, we learned that they had no money to invest in infrastructure, so their laboratories are aging. Students want modern labs. Once they enter the labour market, they’ll be working in modern facilities. The campus doesn’t even have the money to improve its labs and its library. There are infrastructure problems. Campus Saint-Jean is being squeezed as much as possible, while the university keeps its funds for the main campus.

What can the federal government do? One of the solutions we propose is that federal government funding for francophone institutions go directly to the institutions rather than through the provincial government.

How can the Bankruptcy Act help Campus Saint-Jean? I’m not sure that it can, since Campus Saint-Jean depends on the University of Alberta, but by no longer being subject to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, universities would no longer be able to use that mechanism to walk away from their creditors. The goal is to make provincial governments accountable and responsible. We also want to ensure adequate funding so that universities function optimally, so they can offer all the required services and so francophone universities get the funding they are due.

[English]

Senator Simons: Believe me, I am very committed to trying to save Campus Saint-Jean, which I think is a tremendous asset to all of Western Canada and not just francophone Albertans but for all Albertans.

I just don’t know that I see it as the federal government’s role to tell the province how to fund the university when that is a provincial jurisdiction, while at the same time, the federal government capped its funding 20 years ago to a university that has expanded. I can’t help but think the simpler solution here is to get the federal government to fund the university appropriately as it did in the past.

[Translation]

Senator Moncion: Thank you.

That is one of the elements. We would also like to ensure that the federal government is no longer able to use the mechanism through the provinces. There are certain areas, for example in health, where a sector receives federal money. A precedent was created, and we would like to see the federal government fund francophone initiatives such as Campus Saint-Jean so that the money is no longer channelled through the general campus.

That was one of the problems at Laurentian University, where there was a federation agreement. The main campus controlled the money and crumbs were given to partner campuses. There were three other campuses, including Huntington University and the University of Sudbury. The federation was dissolved and now four institutions are grappling with financial problems. However, Laurentian University continues to receive all the funding. We must find mechanisms for sending the money directly to the educational institutions.

We are also putting pressure on the federal government to ensure that funding for official languages programs is indexed annually so that post-secondary institutions will no longer be chronically underfunded.

Hon. René Cormier: I thank Senator Moncion for so eloquently speaking to the challenges facing universities in francophone minority communities.

Esteemed colleagues, I rise today to speak to Bill S-229, An Act to amend the Language Skills Act (Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick), which was introduced in this chamber by Senator Carignan on December 1, 2021.

I want to acknowledge that I am speaking to you today from the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.

Bill S-229 would guarantee that any person appointed to the office of Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick is able to understand and communicate clearly in the two official languages of our country, French and English.

In order to do so, Bill S-229 would amend section 2 of the Language Skills Act.

[English]

Section 2 of the Language Skills Act prescribes that a person must be able to speak and understand clearly both official languages to be appointed to some key offices, namely the Auditor General of Canada, the Chief Electoral Officer, the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada, the Privacy Commissioner, the Information Commissioner, the Senate Ethics Officer, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Commissioner of Lobbying, the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, the President of the Public Service Commission, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Unquestionably, these various offices play a fundamental role in the governance of our country and in our Canadian socio-political landscape. In addition, while the individuals fulfilling these offices could rightly be considered as officers of Parliament — also called agents of Parliament — nothing in the Language Skills Act explicitly prevents Parliament from adding other positions. So, with Bill S-229, the position of Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick would simply be added to this illustrious list of important functions subject to the Language Skills Act.

[Translation]

As the critic for this bill, I looked at it from four different perspectives that I would like to share with you today: the historical context of the evolution of language rights in New Brunswick, the duties and responsibilities of the Lieutenant-Governor, the constitutional issues this bill raises, and the modernization and transparency of the appointment processes for the highest offices of this country.

In his speech at second reading on December 14, Senator Carignan gave various reasons why this bill should be passed. He talked about everything from the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that confer unique status on New Brunswick in terms of language rights to the importance of promoting and protecting the French language by describing the specific historical context in which French acquired its status as one of New Brunswick’s two official languages.

In so doing, he noted that the creation of language obligations specific to New Brunswick, namely those set out in the Charter, was a way of moving away from a situation of “advanced diglossia” in that province, which he explained as a situation in which French had a “lower sociopolitical status.”

As an Acadian senator from New Brunswick, I obviously agree with this historical perspective and I support the intent behind Senator Carignan’s remarks. I would like to sincerely thank him for introducing this bill, which raises the importance of ensuring and promoting bilingualism in high-level public positions. This is a necessary bill that is more than symbolic for our two official language communities in New Brunswick.

That being said, notwithstanding my unwavering support for the main principles of Bill S-229, I cannot help but notice that it raises some complex issues, of a constitutional nature in particular, with regard to the appointment process for this position. After carefully examining the bill, conducting research and consulting an eminent constitutional expert, I wish to express some concerns about the feasibility of the bill. However, before I talk about these important points to consider, I would like to talk about the main reasons I support this bill at second reading.

As a province, New Brunswick is home to a unique socio-cultural, political and constitutional reality when it comes to the protection and promotion of bilingualism and linguistic duality. Since it is the only officially bilingual province in the country, one need only look at sections 16 to 20 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to understand that New Brunswick holds a unique place in Canada’s constitutional space. The Charter contains clear language provisions specific to New Brunswick. Among other things, it provides for the following:

English and French are the official languages of New Brunswick and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the legislature and government of New Brunswick.

The English linguistic community and the French linguistic community in New Brunswick have . . . the right to distinct educational institutions and . . . distinct cultural institutions . . . .

Any member of the public in New Brunswick has the right to communicate with . . . any office of an institution of the legislature or government of New Brunswick in English or French.

New Brunswick actually recognized the principles stated in the Charter in its own Official Languages Act in 2002.

Esteemed colleagues, this recognition of New Brunswick’s special status in the Charter provisions did not happen by accident. It is the result of years of hard work and tenacity on the part of many New Brunswickers. I’d like to share two examples to illustrate that.

First, before 1981, the draft version of the Charter contained no paragraphs specific to New Brunswick. It was not until the Premier of Nova Scotia at the time, the Honourable Richard Hatfield, appeared before the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada that the federal Justice Minister at the time, the Right Honourable Jean Chrétien, decided to put forward New-Brunswick-specific amendments on the linguistic issue.

[English]

In committee, then-Premier Hatfield stated the following:

. . . it is possible and it is to the betterment and the advancement of the people to acknowledge and to enjoy the benefits of two languages and all that comes from that.

Although New Brunswick initially led the foundation for institutional bilingualism in 1969 with the enactment of its first Official Languages Act — a legislative initiative spearheaded by then-premier Louis Robichaud or, as we call him in Acadie, “Petit Louis” — it was the enactment of the Charter in 1982 that consolidated New Brunswick’s place within Canada’s constitutional framework — a remarkable feat by no stretch of the imagination.

[Translation]

However, esteemed colleagues, despite this progress, in 1982, the Charter still did not recognize the principles set out in the Act Recognizing the Equality of the Two Official Linguistic Communities in New Brunswick, which had been passed in the province the year before and recognized the right of the francophone and anglophone linguistic communities to “distinct institutions.” It took determination on the part of New Brunswick’s premier at the time, Frank McKenna, to get the principles of this provincial statute enshrined in the Charter in 1993 with the addition of section 16.1.

[English]

Mr. McKenna once affirmed in committee that section 16.1 of the Charter would essentially make New Brunswick a distinct society. In my opinion, this notion of a distinct society is not only rooted in the Charter provisions but also embedded in the very fabric of New Brunswick society, socially and culturally.

[Translation]

The current demographic reality in New Brunswick clearly demonstrates this situation. In 2016, more than 31.9% of the New Brunswick population reported French as their first language, while English was the first language of 64.8% of the population. Some regions, like the Acadian Peninsula in the northeast of the province, have a high concentration of francophones, accounting for about 96% of the population, while other regions, for instance in the southwest of the province, are predominantly anglophone, accounting for about 98% of their population. In this respect, two distinct linguistic communities co-exist in New Brunswick. This still poses significant challenges, particularly with respect to the substantive equality of these two communities.

A recent report by the Canadian Institute for Research on Linguistic Minorities found that, and I quote:

The language vitality indices signal that the gap between the two official languages continues to widen, at the expense of French.

The report later states, and I quote:

The use of the official languages at work varied between the three levels of government present in the province in 2016 . . . . The higher the level of government, the more employees spoke mainly English, to the detriment of French. The percentage of public servants who spoke English most often increased from 74.5% among municipal and regional governments to 76.0% in the provincial government, and 79.2% in the federal government in New Brunswick.

[English]

While New Brunswick citizens have indeed acquired language rights, I should still remind this chamber that a right is not in itself a guarantee that both linguistic communities in that province will flourish equally in the future. A right by itself is meaningless without associated actions protecting and defending it.

The social contract binding New Brunswick citizens in their collective appreciation and understanding of bilingualism and linguistic duality needs to be sustained by direct actions. Like a living tree — if I may — it cannot survive entirely on its own.

Ensuring that the Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick speaks and comprehends both official languages is a critical step in maintaining and revitalizing the social cohesion among citizens of New Brunswick with respect to language rights.

Colleagues, it is with that reality in mind and through these very lenses that we should try to grasp the overarching objectives behind Senator Carignan’s proposed bill.

[Translation]

In this context, what role does the Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick play? As elsewhere, the Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick is the provincial representative of Her Majesty the Queen and serves the two linguistic communities of this province by taking on a number of official duties or traditional activities. The Lieutenant-Governor opens, prorogues and dissolves the legislative assembly, grants Royal Assent to all bills, gives the Speech from the Throne, participates in official ceremonies honouring the achievements of New Brunswickers, and welcomes members of the Royal Family, heads of state, ambassadors and other representatives of foreign countries, to name just a few. In addition to these official duties, the Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick is also a unifying symbol of the province.

Former lieutenant-governors, such as the Honourable Jocelyne Roy Vienneau, Herménégilde Chiasson, Gilbert Finn and Hédard Robichaud, performed their official duties admirably and also fostered stronger ties between the province’s two linguistic communities. Because they were able to speak and understand both official languages with all New Brunswickers, they helped strengthen the public’s appreciation for this high office and built linguistic and cultural bridges between the province’s French and English linguistic communities.

Also, in light of this reality, we can say that maintaining and promoting bilingualism and linguistic duality in New Brunswick represent true vectors of integration and democratization, which promote better social cohesion between citizens. That’s why it is only natural for the people of New Brunswick, the only officially bilingual province in Canada, to expect anyone who fills the position of lieutenant-governor to be able to clearly speak and understand both official languages, as set out in Bill S-229.

That being said, as I mentioned from the outset, this bill raises some complex questions, particularly of a constitutional nature, regarding the appointment process for this position, and they merit further study in committee.

[English]

Currently the Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick is appointed by the Governor General-in-Council according to section 58 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and usually for a period of five years. The term “Governor-in-Council” simply refers to the Governor General acting by and with the advice of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada. Factually, the Privy Council’s advice is generally understood as made by the cabinet by means of an order-in-council; and yet, the appointment of a lieutenant-governor is specifically one made through an instrument of advice from the Prime Minister to the Governor General rather than through a cabinet process.

This power of recommendation reserved to the Prime Minister could be described as a special prerogative, as duly recognized in a 1935 order-in-council. In fact, the legal instrument also lists other special prerogatives of the Prime Minister, such as recommending the appointment of senators or the Speaker of the Senate.

[Translation]

Colleagues, in light of this information, can we establish a distinction between the Prime Minister’s power of recommendation, as stated in this order, and the Governor General’s power to make official appointments, as set out in section 58 of the Constitution Act, 1867? At first glance, the answer could be yes.

Paul Daly, the University Research Chair in Administrative Law and Governance at the University of Ottawa, has suggested, based on a United Kingdom Supreme Court ruling commonly referred to as Miller (No. 2), that it would be possible to make a distinction between the advice of a prime minister and the decision of a governor general, including when it comes to the process for appointing a lieutenant-governor.

In that case, how are we to interpret the scope of Bill S-229? Does it apply to the recommendation of the Canadian prime minister or the Governor General’s power to make official appointments?

In other words, does this bill act on the Constitution or on the so-called “special” prerogative of the Prime Minister? That is the question I have, and I would like to address it with you through two possible interpretations that seem to lead to different conclusions.

The first assumes that this bill would guide the process for appointing a Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick, as set out in section 58 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Formally, it is the Governor General, not the Prime Minister, who appoints a person to the position of lieutenant-governor, although it is true, as the 6th edition of Constitutional Law states, “that the governors essentially engage in solemn acts that authenticate certain government decisions.”

By making it a requirement that any person appointed to the office of Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick be bilingual, we could be undermining the office of the Governor General.

In order to make such a change at that level, we must consider subsection 41(a) of the Constitution Act, 1982, which states, and I quote:

(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;

Benoît Pelletier, the eminent legal scholar, constitutional expert and professor of law at the University of Ottawa, said the following:

 . . . Her Majesty and her official representatives are an integral part of the composition of these institutions and have many powers associated with them. This status and these powers could only be assigned in accordance with subsection 41(a) of the 1982 Act.

On that basis, is it possible that Bill S-229 could affect the powers of one of the official representatives of Her Majesty the Queen, namely the Governor General? At first glance and from what we just heard, that could be the case.

In his speech at second reading, Senator Carignan explained that section 12 of the Constitution Act, 1867, “clearly gives Parliament the power to amend, through simple legislation, the powers to appoint the Governor General.”

In light of Professor Pelletier’s observations concerning paragraph 41(a) of the Constitution Act, 1982, can we support Senator Carignan’s interpretation? I think we need to ask that question and examine it more closely.

The second possible interpretation of Bill S-229 that I would like to discuss with you assumes that it would regulate the recommendation process used by the Prime Minister within the meaning of the 1935 order-in-council.

As I mentioned earlier, it is actually the Prime Minister, not the Governor General, who recommends someone for the position of lieutenant-governor. If we look at it that way, the bill would likely force the Prime Minister to recommend someone who is proficient in both official languages.

Again according to Professor Pelletier, it would be possible to limit the Prime Minister’s discretion or prerogative because, while that discretion or prerogative is constitutional, it is still derived from conventions “which are not, strictly speaking, rules of law.”

What exactly is a “constitutional convention?”

Appearing before the Special Senate Committee on Senate Modernization, law professor Kate Glover reminded us that constitutional conventions are, and I quote:

 . . . political creatures that have three features. First, there has to be a precedent. Second, it has to be experienced as normative or obligatory by the political actors. Third, there has to be a reason justifying the rule or practice.

In the same vein, Chief Justice Laskin of the Supreme Court of Canada and Justices Estey and McIntyre stated the following in Re: Resolution to amend the Constitution:

 . . . a fundamental difference between the legal, that is the statutory and common law rules of the constitution, and the conventional rules is that, while a breach of the legal rules, whether of statutory or common law nature, has a legal consequence in that it will be restrained by the courts, no such sanction exists for breach or non-observance of the conventional rules. . . . The sanction for non-observance of a convention is political in that disregard of a convention may lead to political defeat, to loss of office, or to other political consequences, but it will not engage the attention of the courts which are limited to matters of law alone.

“If” — and I do mean “if” — the Prime Minister’s power to recommend arises from a constitutional convention as understood by Professor Pelletier, and “if” Bill S-229 truly does infringe on or limit the Prime Minister’s discretion, the drawbacks of this bill would be more political than anything else.

Honourable senators, without seeking to undermine the purpose of Bill S-229, which is particularly advantageous for New Brunswick’s two linguistic communities, I do have some questions that are worth going into and that should be studied in committee by subject-matter experts such as Professor Pelletier.

[English]

To put it mildly, I totally agree with the intention of Bill S-229, but we need clarity so as to avoid any unintended negative effects that would undermine its implementation. We must do it right, colleagues.

With that in mind, I’m now turning to the fourth and final point of my speech, which is that this bill raises the transparent nature of the appointment process of the lieutenant-governor. Again, colleagues, please indulge me for a few moments while I share my thoughts on the matter.

[Translation]

On December 15, 2021, while asking the Government Representative in the Senate a question about the upcoming Senate appointments, I reminded the chamber that an independent advisory board is mandated to “provide non-binding merit-based recommendations to the Prime Minister on Senate nominations.”

I also said that:

 . . . the board members seek to support the Government of Canada’s intent “to ensure representation of . . . linguistic, minority and ethnic communities in the Senate.”

What about the process of appointing a lieutenant-governor? Should an advisory committee be struck to ensure a transparent and open process?

In 2012, Prime Minister Harper created the Advisory Committee on Vice-Regal Appointments, which would, and I quote:

 . . . provide non-binding recommendations to the Prime Minister on the selection of the Governor General, Lieutenant Governors and Territorial Commissioners.

One of the interesting features of this committee, which is similar to the process for appointing senators, was its composition. It was composed of individuals from outside of government, the idea being that when it came time to appoint a lieutenant-governor, there would be a selection of temporary members from the province in question, thereby adding a regional perspective.

However, that committee has not met since 2015. Instead, it is the Prime Minister’s Office, in collaboration with the Privy Council Office, that searches for candidates for such appointments.

Colleagues, public trust is one of the cornerstones of our system of parliamentary governance. We must ensure that our decisions are made within a framework of openness, accountability and transparency. The vitality of our democratic institutions depends greatly on this.

These major principles are at the heart of my parliamentary commitments as the second vice-president of the ParlAmericas Open Parliament Network.

Canada is an important member of this network, which promotes legislative openness through efforts to increase transparency and access to public information, strengthen the accountability of democratic institutions, promote the participation of citizens in legislative decision-making, and ensure a culture of ethical behaviour and probity in the national legislatures of the Americas and the Caribbean.

Following up on these comments, it may perhaps be appropriate to formalize, with a law for example, a mechanism such as that of the 2012 advisory committee, to make it permanent and stable. This tool would ensure that current and future prime ministers are accountable, and this mechanism could complement the objectives of Bill S-299.

[English]

In conclusion, honourable senators, I indicated at the beginning of the speech that I would approach the bill from four aspects. In fact, there is a fifth aspect underlying this analysis, which is more profound and central to our country’s identity. This dimension touches on our ability as a country to truly recognize the place of Indigenous peoples in the foundation of Canada.

Unfortunately, this matter goes beyond debating a piece of legislation about the official language requirements of a lieutenant-governor. This is a complex issue that needs to be examined in depth in a broader context.

In the spirit of truth and reconciliation, I recognize that, as parliamentarians, we must strive to support and promote the use of Indigenous languages, as indicated in the Indigenous Languages Act, and it is the responsibility of all of us to do better, to do more, and to engage actively in real dialogue, in a space free of prejudice and judgment of one another. Honourable senators, I sincerely look forward to participating in that conversation with you and with all Canadians.

[Translation]

I will conclude by quoting the Commissioner of Official Languages, Raymond Théberge, who stated the following in an article published for the fiftieth anniversary of the Official Languages Act:

Both official languages, English and French, are at the heart of our Canadian identity. They are at the core of our history. Together with Indigenous languages, Canada’s true first languages, they are the foundation of the values of diversity and inclusion in our society. Indigenous languages are an important part of Canada’s cultural landscape. In the spirit of reconciliation and in accordance with the fundamental values that unite us, all Canadians can support their country’s first languages and their country’s official languages.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

Hon. Michèle Audette: I will be brief.

[Editor’s Note: Senator Audette spoke in an Indigenous language.]

We are on the unceded territory of several nations who speak the language of the Innu, the Atikamekw, the Maliseet, the Abenaki, the Wendat and the Wolastoqey.

Thank you very much, Senator Cormier, for talking about the importance of Indigenous languages. The recognition of these languages is a principle of reconciliation. Given that these are founding languages, how could we make sure to include the nations in your beautiful region, the Wolastoquey and the Maliseet and, of course, the Mi’kmaq, in this bill? I invite everyone to join the conversation, to consult and to debate this issue because, in many generations, you and I will be proud of the fact that we finally acknowledged that Canada has many other important languages, in particular the languages of the First Peoples.

Senator Cormier: Thank you very much for your comment and question, Senator Audette.

The answer to your question is both simple and complex, and it obviously lies in dialogue. I firmly believe, as I mentioned at the end of my speech, that this dialogue among all those who speak both Indigenous and official languages must occur in an atmosphere of joint reflection on our past and our future.

What I mean by that is that, as Canadians, we are currently living in a context where, thanks to our Constitution, we have two official languages and a law on Indigenous languages. I believe that we have tools that should not divide but rather serve to bring us closer together. It is obvious that this dialogue could continue in New Brunswick, senator.

My answer is both vague and specific. Why vague? I guess it is because I believe that this answer needs to come from both a francophone living in a minority community, like me, and from the Indigenous people who have been living on this land for millennia. It is my greatest wish that we can have an open and transparent dialogue while thinking about and showing respect for all of the languages of this country.

[English]

Senator Moncion: Absolutely. This has been going on for a long time. Education in francophone minority communities is underfunded. There are no equivalents, including when it comes to infrastructure.

Earlier I talked about research laboratories. There is not a lot of funding for specific research in French. It is a poor community. Post-secondary institutions that provide education in French or have a French campus have been getting by with very little for a long time. They perform miracles, as far as I am concerned, since they continue to offer top-notch courses. They have few resources for expanding and gaining the recognition of major universities. They are the poor relations of education.

(On motion of Senator Plett, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Carignan, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Housakos, for the second reading of Bill S-229, An Act to amend the Language Skills Act (Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick).

Hon. Percy Mockler: First, Senator Cormier, coming as you do from New Brunswick, you have given an excellent presentation of the challenges we face today, and I congratulate you on your fine speech.

I would be remiss if I did not also acknowledge Senator Audette’s comments on another chapter for improving the lives of Canadians.

My question is about the bill in question, and I need your help here, Senator Cormier. What vehicle would be the best and most appropriate way to move forward on such an issue with greater clarity?

For instance, should we refer it to committee, or should we wait until the bill to modernize the Official Languages Act is introduced and include it in another debate? This might allow us to more fully examine some of what Senator Audette raised as well as some of the things in your presentation.

Hon. René Cormier, pursuant to notice of February 8, 2022, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages be authorized to examine and report on Francophone immigration to minority communities;

That, given that the federal government plans to develop an ambitious national Francophone immigration strategy, the committee be authorized to:

a)review the progress on the target for French-speaking immigrants settling outside of Quebec;

b)study the factors that support or undermine the ability of French-speaking immigrants to settle in Francophone minority communities;

c)study the factors that support or undermine the ability of Canada’s current immigration programs and measures to maintain the demographic weight of the French-speaking population;

d)study the measures and programs implemented by the Government of Canada to recruit, welcome and integrate French-speaking immigrants, refugees and foreign students;

e)study the impact of these measures and programs on the development and vitality of English-speaking communities in Quebec; and

f)identify ways to increase support for this sector and to ensure that the Government of Canada’s objectives can be met; and

That the committee submit its final report to the Senate no later than March 31, 2023, and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings for 180 days after the tabling of the final report.