Debates of May 4th, 2022

Right to Vote at 16 Act

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his well-delivered speech and the initiative he has brought forward.

I am curious if he can comment on the fact that no other jurisdiction, whether provincial or passed on from a province to a municipality, seems to have taken up this initiative to lower the voting age. I am wondering if he is aware of any consultation that provinces have done and what that consultation might be.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, the issue of provinces is an interesting one. It was a certain Saskatchewan premier, Tommy Douglas, the former leader of our party, who first brought the initiative to lower the voting age to 18 in Saskatchewan all those years ago. Therefore, there is a precedent.

I was talking to my wonderful colleague, the member for Nunavut, about their experience. In Nunavut, several organizations that represent Inuit people hold elections, and the voting age for those elections is 16.

I think this is a matter that would be very interesting for provincial governments to consider, but what we are talking about here this evening is the federal government, the government that we are involved in, the government for which we create laws and establish precedents. I hope that this place will lower the voting age to 16 and strengthen our country.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my colleague for his speech. This is an interesting bill, but I would like my colleague to elaborate on a few things.

First, it is said that someone who votes gets in the habit of voting, which means that the first vote is important.

For the vote at 16 to be effective and have an impact on voter turnout, the participation rate for those between the ages of 16 and 18 has to be higher so that these voters quickly develop this good habit and remain consistent in their voting practices.

Testing has already been conducted. I would like to know whether there are scientific studies based on these tests that can provide us with proof. If so, we would like the names of those studies so that we can see whether voter turnout was higher for those between the ages of 16 and 18 than for those between the ages of 18 and 25, for example.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, yes, there is evidence that when the voting age is lowered, the voter turnout is higher among 16- to 18-year-olds than it is for those between 18 and 24, and the older of the young voting cohorts. That information and that research were shared with us just recently by Dr. Jan Eichhorn.

We have a long record now, because we have countries such as Austria, which lowered the voting age in 2007. In Scotland, it was lowered for the independence referendum in 2016. We have seen the effect over the years, and the effect is positive on overall voter turnout. I think this is something we need to consider very seriously when we look at the potential benefits of this bill.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, not only for his leadership with this important bill, but for his grace in acknowledging the number of other members in this place who have introduced it in past sessions, including the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. No doubt, she and I will be strongly supporting this, for many of the reasons that he shared.

My question is with respect to the other jurisdictions from around the world that have already taken this step. He mentioned Austria and Germany, for example. Could he share more about their experience and the efficacy this has had in increasing voter participation?

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, that was an excellent question from the member for Kitchener Centre. I would encourage him to talk to some of the researchers in this field, because they will do a much better job than I can of explaining the data and some of the nuanced findings from the research they have done.

There are some very interesting findings, and many of the research findings really contradict some of the stereotypes that we have of young people. They found that young people are less partisan, that they consult more sources of information, and that they have an impact on their parents and are not simply influenced by their parents.

I think that when we look at the experience of other countries, which we have the benefit of, it becomes very clear that this is something that would move our country forward.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is always interesting to debate the parliamentary process and the pillars of democracy, and elections are obviously one of them.

Back in the early 1990s, I belonged to a relatively small caucus in the Manitoba legislature as an MLA. A discussion took place between me and Jon Gerrard, the leader of the Liberal Party at the time, which led me to take on the initiative of looking at what we could be proposing in the Manitoba legislature for electoral reform. I came up with a series of debating points, and one of them happened to be lowering the voting age to 16. I was quite enthusiastic about lowering the age, but I wanted to be as objective as I could in approaching the issue.

Whether it was at high schools in Dauphin, Winnipeg or out in Steinbach, I was quite surprised that the greatest amount of opposition to lowering the age was there. Young people themselves tended to object to the idea of lowering the voting age to 16. It surprised me, as it surprised a number of the teachers who were involved in some of the discussions that took place. At the end of the day, it was not just the high schools that were at play, as other factors were brought into it. Ultimately, in the report that I provided, there were reservations concerning lowering the voting age to 16.

When I reflect on it today, it is an appropriate question. We have 10 provinces and two territories, and independent election agencies throughout Canada and Elections Canada itself. I think it would be appropriate for Elections Canada or one of the independent election outlets under provincial jurisdiction to look at this issue. On the surface, there are many arguments as to why we want to move in that direction, but if we conducted consultations, it might change some of the thinking on it.

In the member's speech, for example, he said that to a certain degree we are already moving in that direction because, after all, someone who is 14 can become a young Liberal, a young New Democrat, a young Conservative or even a young Green Party member. We all value the contributions that young people make to our political organizations. I know because I have witnessed first-hand the type of enthusiasm that is there, and I do what I can to encourage that enthusiasm.

Many members of the Liberal caucus will remember one of the first days that we came back as a majority government and the Prime Minister challenged us to develop youth councils, to work with young people and to get them engaged in politics. There are currently all sorts of mechanisms that enable young people to get engaged in politics. I would hope we would see more involvement on this particular issue and other issues that are, I would argue, of equal importance and need to be addressed on electoral reform.

I am a very strong advocate for how we can get more people to participate in the democratic process. One thing, for example, would be voting at malls. We should allow people to vote where they are going. We see that in limited ways, and I think we can do a lot more to enable wider and better participation in voting.

I remember sitting in on some discussions where some people would say, “Well, voting should be made mandatory.” That is not something I would advocate, but there are some countries in the world that have mandatory voting. Others would say that there should be a carrot to encourage people to go out and vote. I have even heard some people say that there should be a flat fee for people who show up to vote to provide them a credit. I think that everyone wants to see our democracy in a very healthy state. One of the ways we can do that is to ensure we are encouraging people to get out and vote, and find some of those mechanisms so that we can.

I do not think we can underestimate the true value of youth today, and of those who are 12 and under. I will go back to one of my first volunteers, Walter Crock, who was eight years old when he showed up at my campaign office back in 1988. At eight years old, he showed up, and was probably in a better position to vote than many people I knew who were over 18. I could not see him at the time, but he was at the front of the campaign office. Fifteen minutes later, I met young Walter, who pointed out three spelling mistakes in my brochure. Every political party has had that sort of experience. We should capitalize not just on the 16-year-olds, but go all the way down to an age when young people do get engaged.

If we want young people to vote, whether in a provincial, territorial or federal election, at the age of 18, the best thing we can do is encourage school divisions to have civic programs to encourage youth parliaments, whether they are in legislatures or in local high schools, and encourage young people to get engaged in political campaigns. We see many schools telling students that they can get a credit if they go to a local campaign. They do not say to support a political party, but teachers often encourage students to get involved in a campaign directly. By doing that, students are getting that first-hand experience. They will go home to tell mom or dad, or whoever their guardian is, that they were candidate X or Y, and that is not limited to 16-year-olds.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, as I said, the age of maturity is that turning point, and if we take some basic 101 psychology and sociology courses, we will find that it is not necessarily age that makes the determination. However, as legislators and as parliamentarians, we have an obligation not only to 16-years-olds but also to all young people to come up with ways we can challenge them at that younger age to get engaged in the political process.

At the end of the day, I would like to see a body, such as Elections Canada or a provincial or territorial legislature and their independent election offices, look at ways we can get young people more engaged, whether it is through scrutineers, voting, or Elections Canada going into the classrooms more. We are starting to see that with some of the independent election agencies. Elections Canada going to a grade 9 classroom would send a very powerful message.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, there are many ways we can approach this, and I appreciate the fact that the member has brought forward a bill that allows for some discussion, at least for a couple of hours here in the House of Commons. However, my challenge to young people, whatever their age, is to get engaged. My challenge to parliamentarians who know these young people is to get them engaged. They will not be disappointed. I also would like to see these young people inspire their parents and others to get out and vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members that, if they want to have conversations or if they have questions and comments, then they will have to wait until the appropriate time. Unfortunately, during PMB, it is only the first speaker who gets questions and comments. If members have questions and comments, they might want to go to the member who did the speech after the fact. That would work better to ensure that we can all hear what is being said in the House.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Calgary Shepard has the floor.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on Bill C-210. This is a difficult bill to debate because it is a responsibility of citizenship and that is the fundamental question before us. What is a citizen? What are their duties and responsibilities? Often times, people talk about what rights they have as a citizen. They rarely address the responsibilities of a citizen.

I, like many Canadians, did not have the benefit of having been born in this country and, therefore, gifted with citizenship. I have taken an oath of citizenship to gain it and to have and enjoy all the freedoms and rights that every single citizen of Canada enjoys. However, with this comes the responsibility to vote. Our civic duty goes beyond just voting. There is much more to being a good citizen than simply voting, forgetting about it between elections, and moving on. This is where a lot of people should and could get involved.

I have concerns with the way this legislation is drafted. I have concerns also with some of the arguments I have heard here and online from advocates and academics who are pushing the idea of reducing the age of voting from 18 to 16. I want to show that I have done my homework on this and that I am approaching this thoughtfully.

The election reform committee report in late 2016 did not recommend reducing the age of voting from 18 to 16. The minority dissenting report filed with the House of Commons by the Liberal Party, the Liberal government caucus members, only asked that 18-year-olds be registered. The minority report that was filed jointly by the New Democrats and the Green Party asked that future referendums on electoral reform allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote, which I guess is an idea they got from the Scottish experience.

Prince Edward Island's legislature actually considered reducing the age of voting in its provincial elections to 16 just last year, and that was voted down at the provincial legislative level.

The voting age restriction in Canada has actually been charter tested before, not at the Supreme Court of Canada level, at least not that I am aware of, but in Fitzgerald v. Alberta. It was tested in that court and the judge found that, while it was a violation of the right, he could, under section 1 of the charter, find reasonable grounds for it and explained the reasoning therein.

One of the examples I have heard was the Austrian experience. In the last federal election in Austria, the voter turnout was about 75%. If we go back 40, 50 and 60 years, voter turnout was over 90% in Austria, and that has actually been the experience until very recently, when voter turnout started to dip. It is true that before the 2019 federal Austrian election, Austria did have a voter turnout that was higher. It has gone down, so I do not think that is a good example to use, this unique situation of reducing the voting age to 16 being the cause of voter turnout going up, because it has gone down since then. Looking at it historically, it is lower than it was 40, 50 and 60 years ago.

The issue of 14- to 17-year-olds voting in partisan leadership elections in political parties has been raised. I have seen this repeatedly, so I want to address it. Typically, people have to pay to join a political party in Canada to be eligible to vote in a leadership race. They do not pay to become a citizen. Let us very much hope that people do not engineer a situation where they are essentially paying for the rights and benefits of a citizen of Canada. It was definitely not the situation in my case. That is a fundamental difference between becoming a member of a political party, and paying to vote at the age 14, and being a citizen of Canada, which comes with responsibilities and duties. I will lay claim that these duties are a lifetime of responsibilities to our democracy, our Parliament and our monarch, which every citizen of Canada bears the responsibility to protect.

I have heard the argument that it would improve voter turnout as well. I have a concern here with how the argument is being framed. It is just basic mathematics. The potential could be a million or a million and a half new voters being added onto the voter rolls. I will go into a bit more about these voter rolls and the actual Elections Canada campaigning. Unless every single 16- and 17-year-old were to vote thereafter in a federal election, effectively, voter turnout would go down if only half, or even 75%, of them voted. Everything else would be exactly the same, but because the pool would be increased and all the new additions would not all vote, the voter turnout would actually decrease. There might be a high level of enthusiasm for their first election, but it would still effectively decrease the overall voter turnout. That is just a word of caution.

I spoke about the responsibilities of citizenship. One of them is serving in our military. Some choose to take up the responsibility by wearing the uniform of our armed forces and serving Canada. People cannot join the regular armed forces at the age of 16. They can only join the primary reserves with parental consent if they can prove that they are a full-time student. They can join at age 17 with just parental consent, and at the age of 18 they can fully join any of the regular armed forces units and go through basic training in the army, navy or air force.

The age for alcohol consumption and purchase in Canada is 19 in most provinces, 18 in Quebec, 18 in Manitoba and 18 in Alberta. The age for cannabis consumption and purchase is 19 in all provinces except Alberta, where it is 18, and Quebec, where it is 21. The age to obtain a driver's licence is 16, but we get full driving rights at 19 in about half the provinces. Four provinces use 18 and two provinces use a graduated system.

We place limits on young citizens and those who are 16 and 17 in what I would call the basics of becoming a full citizen. They get all rights and benefits as they come of age and are able to take on all these extra responsibilities.

The issue is not maturity. I have met incredibly mature young people who are 16 or who are 12. In fact, I trust my 11-year-old daughter much more with my car keys to grab something out of my car and pick something up than my 13-year-old son. My 11-year-old daughter is far more mature and ready to take on way more responsibilities than my 13-year-old, who still loves to play video games, especially Minecraft, which is still a big one in the household.

Age is not a good indicator of maturity. I have met 40-year-olds and 30-year-olds who are so deeply immature that I question their ability to give a rational vote at the ballot box. However, they are allowed to; they can vote. That is the great thing about Canada. People can cast a vote for any reason once they reach that age, whether it is for a political party, for the leadership or for a single issue they care about. If it is something that strikes them as a good idea, they can do that.

I talked about some of my deep concerns with the voter rolls. Let us say the voter rolls were reduced to allow 16- and 17-year-olds. Once they make it onto the voter rolls, their contact information would be shared with political parties by Elections Canada. It would thereafter be shared with MP offices, which would then directly communicate with these new voters. We should be able to communicate with voters.

Then I wonder about a basic question on access to high schools. Should members of Parliament and candidates choosing to run for public office ensure that we have equal access to high schools to campaign there? Is that something we want? Is that a place where we want to be able to campaign? How would that work? It is the interaction between federal government legislation and practice and local rules at the high school and school district levels. That is a concern I have. It is not clear to me how this would work.

There are municipalities and cities that have considered allowing voting as early as the age of 16. I do not think that is a terribly bad idea, and it is interesting. Voting at a younger age gives an opportunity for people to practise a habit. I have heard this said, and it has been mentioned in this debate as well.

I have saved my Yiddish proverb for last. I know many members await it. “A quiet fool is half a sage.” Hopefully by rising to speak on this, I have not made a fool out of myself. I propose some caution, perhaps, as we proceed through debate and to a vote on this piece of legislation and the idea behind it. I do not believe this is something we should rush into. There are very good areas that we could debate, but things need to be more finely considered here.

Again, I hope the sage matters that I have brought to the House, including the consideration from Prince Edward Island's legislature, which voted this down in 2021, the full responsibilities of citizenship and the limits we place currently, are considered as we decide whether to lower the voting age from 18 to 16.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on this subject that keeps coming up. Obviously there is interest in it.

It also seems to appeal to young people, even though the member for Winnipeg North said that young people do not want to vote. In reality, 16- and 17-year-olds have gone to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to seek the right to vote by challenging the constitutionality of the law.

My colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley talked about the benefit of having 16- to 18-year-olds vote. If these young people vote, participation in the democratic process is sure to increase as the pool of voters gets bigger. It is simple math, and it does not take a Ph.D. to know that. The question is more whether these young people will actually go out and vote, but I will come back to that a little later.

First, I want to respond to what my colleague from Winnipeg North said. He stated that we need to encourage people to vote and we need to find ways to encourage them. He is looking for ways because he is a dynamic guy, as we know. Everybody in the House knows him.

I can give him some ideas. When I was in Quebec City, sitting as part of the opposition in the National Assembly, we asked questions, and the ministers usually gave us answers. When they did not, we invoked a standing order to remind the ministers that they had to answer.

When I arrived in Ottawa, I was told to brace myself. Ministers in Quebec City do not always answer questions, but the federal government gives nothing but nonsense answers. No matter what question is asked, the government reads from the same talking points, even if the answer is completely unrelated.

If the Liberals really want to help get the vote out, they need to respect the voters' intelligence and answer the questions put to them by the opposition, because those questions are coming from the voters. If the government really wants to increase voter turnout, it needs to start treating the public and voters with respect and answer the questions.

If they respected the public, they would remember that on September 25, 2021, the people elected a minority Liberal government and the NDP was relegated to the opposition. That was what the people wanted, what they decided.

Had the government respected voters' intelligence—had it respected voters, period—it would have respected the fact that this government was supposed to be a minority government and that the NDP was supposed to be an opposition party, but the very people who make a big to-do about boosting voter turnout are the same ones saying that the way people voted does not matter and that they are entering into an alliance for whatever reason and giving a minority government a majority.

Maybe if people felt respected, more of them might vote. Voter turnout has been in free fall for forty-some years, and even though it edged up recently, that is nothing to get excited about. The point is, let us start by respecting voters 18 and up before we start talking about the 16- to 18-year-olds.

Let us look at voting rights for 16- to 18-year-olds. I find this so interesting. There are some main ideas I would like to work on with the member.

First, it has been proven that a voter who votes for the first time tends to vote more often throughout their lifetime. It is a habit. Some people pick up bad habits; others pick up good ones. Voting is a good habit.

Technically, if 16- to 18-year-olds vote more, that high level of civic participation will continue throughout their lives. That will make democracy in Quebec and Canada more accessible.

I am not against the idea. On the contrary, I find it interesting. That is why I asked my colleague the question. He answered me, perhaps because he is not in government. I asked him some questions, and he did not answer that the dog ate the answer. I thank him for that because it is rare to get answers here. I find this interesting, and I wrote it down in my notebook.

We now have examples, and since this is being done elsewhere in the world, we are watching and wondering how it could happen here. The member for Calgary Shepard also said something interesting. He looks startled, but I can assure him that I found it interesting. I did not fact-check what he said, but I will take his word for it. He said that in Austria, voter turnout increased initially, but it went back down once the excitement wore off. That is interesting.

It is important to understand that the ultimate goal is to allow 16- to 18-year-olds to vote. Someone once said that you do not need to be old to be wise. I think it was Xavier Dolan, but I am not sure. It means that a person can be very bright even at 16 or sometimes younger. I have met people in that age group who were really into the news, who read the newspaper and so on. I think it is an interesting idea, and I think something could potentially be done with it.

We in the Bloc Québécois sat down to begin reflecting on this issue. In fact, my colleague pushed us to do so by introducing this bill and asking our opinion. I weighed the pros and cons, and I will briefly outline what I came up with.

First we have those who are in favour. They argue that the school setting may encourage 16-year-olds to vote because, generally speaking, people that age still go to school. Their teachers will talk about this and explain who has the right to vote, and so on. Discussions could be geared to encourage voter turnout. Some studies show that this is not necessarily true, but I still find it interesting.

I have already talked about the fact that voting is a good habit to get into. Another important point is that party members have the right to vote in leadership races. The Conservative Party seems to have a lot of leadership races. Its members must have strong legs, because they are always running.

Young people are more affected by the climate crisis. I am looking at the members of the Green Party and the Bloc Québécois, not to mention the NDP, because we must admit that we are all part of the same team when it comes to the climate crisis. It would be good to hear from young people on this issue. I think that would be worthwhile.

People have the right to join the army at age 17, which is interesting. At age 16, they can get a driver's licence, and why not? Although it is true that you can kill someone with a car, that is uncommon. We can certainly give them the right to vote.

At 16, people can drop out of school. They can get a job and pay taxes, depending on the tax bracket they are in.

I will now talk about the cons. A person is a minor until they are 18. There must be a reason for that. It was decided that a person is a minor before age 18. Parental consent is required for getting married or enlisting. Maybe there would be more successful marriages if that were required. I probably should have asked for my parents' advice before I got married, but no matter.

Some say that 18-year-olds sometimes act like adults and sometimes act like minors. It is still the same thing. There may be reasons for that.

At 16, people are prohibited from smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol. At least, they are prohibited from buying cigarettes and alcohol.

Quebec and the other provinces are not there yet. It would be rather strange for youth to have the right to vote in federal elections, but not in provincial elections. I do not know how that would work, but it is something we could study and work on.

Research has been conducted on this. My colleague mentioned some research findings. It is interesting. Is the research indisputable? No, it is not. It may be too recent. Not many jurisdictions have lowered the voting age, and often the countries cannot be compared. That affects the nature of the sample.

The issue is simple: People must vote. Will lowering the voting age to 16 increase voter turnout? I am not referring to the number of voters, but the actual percentage who vote. I believe this is something we must fight for to ensure that our democracy moves in the right direction, to improve the way we do politics so that we are seen in a better light and people vote because they know it is worth the effort.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, today is a very important day for young people as we debate a bill that will increase the political representation and participation of youth in Canada.

I am dismayed to hear many of my colleagues in the House misunderstand or misrepresent the interests of young people in this discussion. I hope to clarify, for many of my colleagues, the importance of enfranchisement for young people by offering the reality that, here in Canada, we have not always done our very best to ensure enfranchisement.

Let me rewind the clock. In 1959, indigenous people did not have the right to vote in this country. Do members want to know why they did not have the right to vote? It is because people in this chamber said that indigenous people, like myself and my family, were unfit, unready, immature and could not make decisions for themselves. It sounds pretty darn familiar today.

Bill C-210, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, would finally allow those who are truly competent, those who have our future in their hands and those who have the most at risk, to have something. This is something we can truly give them by welcoming them into our democracy.

I would like to thank and applaud my hon. colleague and dear friend, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, for tabling this truly historic piece of legislation. It is time to do what is right. Enfranchisement in a democracy is one of the most critical steps of making our democratic institution stronger. When we deny that fact and when we deny young people this truth, we deny them their future.

I want to address the important contributions of young people so that my colleagues can better understand how young people play a critical role today, right now, not only in our economy but also in our society, our academics and our culture. They also play a critical role in how communities function. There is a saying where I come from that when children and young people walk the earth in front of us, that land is truly blessed because we know they are still here, and it will be their children who will walk that land.

Let us not discredit the value of young people here. I do not want to continue to hear how young people are unfit and how they cannot do things. Young people are doing far more today than many leaders around the globe. Young people are not just the leaders of tomorrow in some far-off imagination: they are the leaders of today, right now.

Young people are facing unprecedented challenges. We often talk about the affordability crisis. We often talk about the housing crisis. We often talk about climate change in the House. Who is it going to affect most? It is going to affect young people. It is going to affect our children. Why not give them the right to have a say?

Young people have to deal with not only the reality of what is to be a diminishing future, but they also have to deal with the lives they are leading now. They are dealing with racism, just as I have. They are dealing with gender identity and their own sexuality. They have questions about how their inclusion in this place, and in all of Canada, can be valued.

I was only 16 years old when I went to work in the oil field in Alberta. Many of my Conservative colleagues often talk about how important it is that we support workers in the oil field. Not once have they come to talk to workers, such as me. I got laid off four times when I was 17. Not once. I did not even have a vote to protect myself. Even though I was paying taxes and I was paying this country's bills, I still could not have a say.

Many young people put their bodies on the line for this country, in many more ways than one, and we still do not give them respect. That reminds me of something I mentioned at the very beginning of this speech: we ignored indigenous peoples' rights to enfranchisement forever, until 1960. My mom did not have the right to vote. As indigenous people were excluded from this place and excluded from enfranchisement, it was a struggle. It still is a struggle today to ensure that they feel safe at the ballot box. Let us not repeat that.

Let us think about the leaders in our world who are young people, and who have made our world better. I think about Greta Thunberg, for example. She is a politically strong, bright young woman leading young people because they know this future is more theirs than ours.

I think of Autumn Peltier, a fellow indigenous youth, who is doing that work here in Canada. We turn our backs so quickly to those who lead our country.

We are seeing more and more young people take action. In light of this vacuum of power, they are taking action in their schools, in community centres and in our campaign offices. Every single one of us has had young people offer up their intelligence, their volunteerism, their spirit, their knowledge and their labour. The least we can do is protect them.

I want to highlight that this is not only a principally correct bill, but it is also one that has proved political merits, as seen in other nations that provide for 16- and 17-year-olds' enfranchisement. Many experts agree that this is a great idea to strengthen a democratic study and is something we have to talk about right now: freedom and democracy. Now is the time to truly put freedom and democracy in the hands of those who have the most to benefit from, but also the most to lose, in our country.

Many experts, such as Jan Eichhorn, an associate professor at the University of Edinburgh, say that this move will increase young people’s interest in politics as well as impact our society in a positive way. This is good news for Canada, should we have the courage to do what is right.

From Cuba to Brazil, Malta and Scotland, several countries around the world have already lowered the voting age and are seeing positive results. Canada must follow suit. For example, during the Scottish Independence Referendum in 2014, 16-year-olds were allowed to participate. That is amazing. According to Democratic Audit UK, that not only allowed participation but it also increased non-partisanship. It increased civil debate and good discussion. That is what our country needs.

Flourishing democracies do not rely on exclusion. They rely on inclusion. That is why indigenous nations in this country have already taken a leadership role on this. Many indigenous organizations already allow our 16-year-old people to vote, because we know the importance of bringing them in. In fact, in Austria, studies have shown that 16- and 17-year-olds have reasonable political knowledge and are able to act with higher civic literacy than voters who are 18 or over. This is shocking. Many of our colleagues here have said the opposite. The level of political interest is not only determined by age: that is what I mean to say here. In no case should we believe that. Young people at home do not believe that. They are valuable. They belong in this country. This country is theirs and they deserve a say. The arguments for lowering the voting age have reasonable evidence.

New Democrats stand with young people in their call for enfranchisement. I personally know that in my constituency of Edmonton Griesbach, many young voters who worked on my campaign when they were just 16 or 17 would make fine voters. Campaign volunteers like Elyasu and Callum are the backbone of civic engagement at the end of the day. They are the ones participating the most. To conclude, the future of our country truly depends on young people. They have the passion.

Again, I want to thank my hon. colleagues for allowing me the opportunity to speak. I would also like to thank my hon. colleague in the New Democratic Party for taking a strong and principled role here and always.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

Pursuant to an order made Tuesday, May 3, the House shall now resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider Motion No. 12 under government business.

(House in committee of the whole on Government Business No. 12, Mrs. Carol Hughes in the chair)

Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before we begin this evening's debate, I would like to remind hon. members of how proceedings will unfold.

Each member speaking will be allotted 10 minutes for debate, followed by 10 minutes for questions and comments. Pursuant to an order made Tuesday, May 3, 2022, the time provided for the debate may be extended beyond four hours, as needed, to include a minimum of 12 periods of 20 minutes each.

Members may divide their time with another member, and the Chair will receive no quorum calls, dilatory motions, or requests for unanimous consent.

We will now begin tonight's take-note debate.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

moved:

That this committee take note of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.

Madam Chair, kwe, kwe. Unusakut. Tansi. Hello. Bonjour.

I want to start by acknowledging that Canada's Parliament is located on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Nunavut.

The tragedy of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls is ongoing. Tomorrow, on May 5, thousands of red dresses will be hung in city squares, on porches, in trees, on fences and in gardens across Canada. These red dresses are a reminder of the pain and loss felt by families, survivors and communities of missing and murdered first nations, Inuit and Métis women, girls, two-spirit and gender-diverse people.

Last June, together with federal, provincial, territorial, municipal and indigenous partners, we launched the missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people national action plan. This includes the Government of Canada's contribution: the federal pathway to address missing and murdered 2SLGBTQQIA+ people.

Is the federal pathway perfect? No, it is not. It is an evergreen document that is intended to evolve, constantly adapt and be trauma-informed, with input foremost from survivors and their families.

Naturally, it will take a government-wide and Canada-wide approach, involving more than 25 federal departments and agencies, the provinces and territories, indigenous organizations and other partners throughout the country, to put this plan into action and bring an end to this tragedy.

This is a national responsibility. The calls for justice in the final report urge governments and society in all its forms to act, and we must fulfill that obligation.

Indigenous groups have long expressed the need for safe, culturally relevant spaces as a key component to move forward on self-determination. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission called for this, as did the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls in section 2.3 of the final report. We are listening and will continue to listen. We are taking action and will continue to take action.

As part of the federal pathway, budget 2021 announced a total of $2.2 billion over five years, notably with $160.9 million ongoing, to end violence against indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+. However, I would like to focus on a particular section of that funding: the $108.8 million over two years that was allocated specifically for the cultural spaces and indigenous communities program that I mentioned just now in French, which responds directly to call to justice 2.3. The program offers opportunities for indigenous women, girls and gender-diverse people to access culture and language to help them strengthen their identities, which in turn can enhance their safety and security.

Last month, I had the opportunity to visit several communities to see the impacts of these projects, which they had been fighting for, in some cases, for over a couple of decades.

In the territory of Kahnawà:ke, for example, we announced $16 million in funding for the construction of a new building to house Kanien'kehá:ka Onkwawén:na Raotitióhkwa, a language and cultural centre with space for the Turtle Island Theatre Company.

These new buildings will help them preserve and enrich their culture, as well as empower new generations of Mohawk learners in a safe and accessible space so they can learn about their community from their peers.

Across the country, in 108 Mile Ranch, British Columbia, we announced a $4-million project. We are funding the construction of a cultural centre in northern Secwépemc territory. Five communities have come together and have been fighting for 17 years to obtain it.

These will be key moments. When the projects are built, people will have safe spaces in which to learn their language and culture, and can expose others to them.

We are currently reviewing other proposals, and there will be additional announcements in due course.

Clearly, as we are making progress, much more needs to be done to answer all of these calls and fully implement the federal pathway. Quite frankly, nobody in Canada should be satisfied until all indigenous women and girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people are safe.

Meegwetch.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Chair, I want to thank the minister for his comments today. I know he is sincere.

In September 2016, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls began. In June 2019, the final report was completed. In December 2019, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations at the time promised to table the national action plan by June 2020. After an extra year, the plan was actually tabled. In that plan, there were seven immediate steps for governments and indigenous organizations to focus on in the immediate 12 months. We are now at the 11-month point.

I am asking if the minister can tell us how many and specifically which of these steps have already been completed, how many are in progress and how many have yet to be started.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Chair, I want to take a moment to thank the member opposite for his advocacy. I know that his interest, compassion and advocacy are genuine.

It did take time to come out with a federal pathway. This is something that has been informed by survivors who are going through an awful time that has only been magnified through a world pandemic. When it comes to the steps that have been accomplished, the federal pathway had a three-year plan. In the next month, I plan to update the House specifically on that progress.

Clearly, what communities and survivors are looking for are results. We are investing, but obviously the results are trailing. I think we will be very clear-eyed in the next month on exactly where we are and will give Canadians a clear, transparent picture of where we are doing well, where we are not doing well and where we need to do more quickly.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Chair, my colleague clearly acknowledges the seriousness of the crisis of violence, something that the Prime Minister noted as a genocide against indigenous women and girls and two-spirit people.

In spite of this seriousness, it is three years since the release of the final report of the national inquiry, and although money has been allocated, it is slow to get out the door. What does this look like? It looks like women, girls and two-spirit people going missing and murdered, with a lack of response from the government. This is a life-and-death matter.

I would ask my hon. colleague if there are targets, timelines and specific budgetary allocations in place to ensure that money gets out the door so that we can ensure more resources are provided to save lives.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Chair, I want to acknowledge that the riding the member opposite represents, as she knows well, is part of the epicentre of the tragedy. Her advocacy is key in making sure that this tragedy ceases to continue and in fact ends. We all know, sadly, that it will not end tomorrow. However, investments that we have made, particularly in her riding for the Ka Ni Kanichihk, for example, very recently, thanks to the member opposite's advocacy, will be key in continuing to accompany survivors and people who are suffering violence.

What we have seen in the last two years is an escalation of that violence, due in part to the pandemic. It is something we have to be very clear-eyed about and acknowledge. The work that has been done over the last six years by this government, whether it is the passage of UNDRIP, the passage of the Indigenous Languages Act or the passage of the child and family services inherent rights in Bill C-92, is part of this immense puzzle that, without being resolved, is continuing the tragedy.

There are steps and goals over the next three years that we will have to be very bloody-minded in achieving. Clearly we will need to accelerate the path on this, and that is something I have undertaken to do.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for his speech. It is clear that this issue is very important to him.

I heard him bring up COVID‑19 twice in response to my colleagues. I would like to know what has been done. We know that crises have serious repercussions in a lot of areas, most notably in cases of violence against women.

I would like to know what the government did when it found out that this was already impacting women—

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The minister has time for a brief response.