Hon. Rosa Galvez: Dear colleagues, today I rise to deliver a speech on Bill S-209, An Act respecting Pandemic Observance Day, which was introduced by Senator Mégie.

In her speech at second reading, Senator Mégie set out three reasons for this bill: the duty to remember, the duty to get through it, and the duty to be prepared for a future pandemic. The impact the pandemic had and continues to have on our lives, our health and our economy certainly justifies the need to remember. We must never forget how hard our health care system and our long-term care facilities were hit, nor must we forget the loss of life that shook our communities.

That said, I would like to focus on the third reason: the duty to be prepared for a future pandemic. Canada was hit hard by the COVID-19 pandemic, and we were poorly prepared for a public health crisis of this magnitude. In the beginning, over 80% of the pandemic-related deaths were in long-term care facilities and retirement homes. Our health care systems were overwhelmed by growing demand and the labour shortages.

Our governments were taken by surprise. Their social safety nets were ill-equipped for a pandemic and nationwide lockdowns. We were asked to urgently pass bills to help Canadians despite Parliament itself lacking a plan to ensure continuity of the legislative process during a pandemic. We had to create all those plans on the fly. Had we been better prepared, we could have been spared much of the impact.

In business and industry, Canada was once again behind other nations. Once upon a time, Canada had cutting-edge vaccine development right here at home, but that capacity gradually declined and disappeared, in part because of profit-seeking and political considerations, according to Dr. Earl Brown, emeritus professor of biochemistry, microbiology and immunology at the University of Ottawa. As a result, Canada was dependent on other countries’ vaccine production.

[English]

Let’s remember that our initial rollout of vaccines at the key moment in the fight against COVID-19 was impacted by delays due to the prioritization of other countries and the inevitably slow ramp up of production around the world.

The government and Canadians have since recognized the importance of rebuilding vaccine production here in Canada, and we have since invested more than $1 billion to address this gap. Let’s see it as a good sign that the Moderna facility that will be located in Montreal will make Canada a leader in mRNA vaccine production.

Just over a decade has elapsed since the H1N1 Pandemic. It might not have been as impactful on all of Canadian society as COVID-19 has been, but the experience should have informed policy-makers, especially since scientists have been warning us of the increased risk of the emergence of new infectious diseases and pandemics.

The lack of emergency preparedness in Canada seems to be a recurring theme. Whether it’s for COVID-19, extreme weather events or climate change Canada always seems to be in a reactive position. Of course, it is impossible to be completely prepared for any crisis, but proactive planning and prevention and action based on science will minimize the impacts of these crises as they arise, and will be extremely beneficial for all Canadians.

In fact, according to the World Health Organization, the cost of fighting COVID-19, estimated to be in the tens of trillions of dollars, could end up being five hundred times more than the cost of investing in limiting the transmission of new diseases.

Honourable senators, it’s easy to say that we will never forget the devastation the pandemic has had on people’s lives; yet, we have had pandemics before, and we were still unprepared. When we forget, we become complacent, and we start failing in our duty to prepare Canadians for crises.

If the Pandemic Observance Day can help remind us of the necessity to be prepared and to adopt effective preventative measures, then maybe we can leave a good legacy to future generations in the hope that we have helped them minimize the impacts of the next world pandemic.

Thank you, meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator McPhedran, seconded by the Honourable Senator White, for the 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).

Hon. Rosa Galvez: Honourable senators, I rise today in the chamber in support of Senator McPhedran’s Bill S-201 to lower the federal voting age to 16.

I spoke in favour of this legislative initiative during the last parliamentary session. I took that opportunity to give voice to youth actively engaged in their communities, advocating not only for environmental conservation and climate action but also for better education and less inequality. They are doing this advocacy work even when their governments don’t recognize their basic right to vote in elections that will impact their immediate future.

When I was reading the words of young Canadians, including Amélie Beaulé, Aya Arba, Solène Tessier, Zoe Keary-Matzner and Sophia Mathur, I wanted to demonstrate that Canadian youth are not only interested in federal politics, but also heavily invested in the decisions that are shaping our tomorrow.

These statements also had a common thread: Young people are capable of critical analysis when it comes to policy, and they deserve the right to be represented in our democratic institutions.

According to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, youth must be empowered. Youth participation is key to democracy and inclusive, efficient political processes. Young women and men are central to social challenges such as poverty, discrimination and climate change, and their participation in politics promotes active citizenship and strengthens social responsibility. It offers innovation, creativity and new thinking. The IPU is actively encouraging youth participation in democracy. I invite you to follow the IPU’s debate competition until May 30, 2022. Watch and listen to young people debate and see how smart and articulate they are in expressing not only their worries but also the solutions they are proposing.

I’m sure you know that many of the recent world movements have been spearheaded by youth who are too worried about their future to wait for older generations such as ours to act or until they themselves are old enough to vote. Inspirational youth like Greta Thunberg and Autumn Peltier have moved millions of young people and adults alike. They have educated us on important issues, and they have helped put a spotlight on pressing matters in ways that so many others have not been able to.

If this proves anything, it is that age is not a factor in understanding and communicating complex issues. It is also definitive proof that adults over 18 years of age do not have a monopoly on good ideas and policy. In fact, in the words of Amélie Beaulé, “Wisdom is the human quality of aspiring to knowledge and understanding while knowing how to keep an open mind.”

Honourable senators, today’s young people embody this perfectly. They are engaged in their communities. They advocate for the greater collective good and equality. They are more connected than ever. They constantly demonstrate a thirst for knowledge, and they do so while keeping an open mind. All they ask in return is that we acknowledge their input, that we recognize their value and that we allow them to participate in the most basic democratic activity.

Lowering the voting age is not a new concept, and there are many good reasons that demonstrate how doing so is a sound and ethical choice. Many jurisdictions around the world have adopted a voting age under 18 for many reasons, including the following: Young people have adult responsibilities but are denied the same rights; young people are expected to follow the law but have no say in making it; young people are already participating in politics; young people make good voters; lowering the voting age will help increase voter turnout; lowering the voting age will improve the lives of youth; knowledge and experience are not criteria for voting eligibility; there are no wrong votes; arguments against lowering the voting age can be used to disenfranchise adults, too; and, finally, legislation to lower the voting age has more support than you think.

In the last parliamentary session, we voted to send this bill to committee so the impacts of lowering the voting age could be studied. We should do that again as soon as possible.

Thank you, meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Duncan, debate adjourned.)

Leave having been given to revert to Other Business, Senate Public Bills, Third Reading, Order No. 2:

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Omidvar, seconded by the Honourable Senator Saint-Germain, for the third reading of Bill S-217, An Act respecting the repurposing of certain seized, frozen or sequestrated assets, as amended.