Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. I will have to look into that. As you correctly point out, the incentives are not in this bill. This bill is about two things: It is about getting money into the hands of 11 million low-income and moderate-income Canadians as quickly as possible in order to help them with rising costs, and, of course, getting money to the provinces and territories dedicated to health care. Whether these measures and others will appear in other bills, if they are to appear, I will have to make inquiries and get back to you on it.

Senator Gold: Thank you. That’s a very good question.

It allows me to remind colleagues that one of the elements of the agreements in principle that have been struck is precisely that they call for bilateral agreements. That is important because every province has its own needs in health care, its own priorities and its own programs in place for which it needs and seeks additional funds to operate even more effectively for the benefit of its citizens.

Again, without knowing what is going on in negotiations between the federal government and, say, Manitoba, Nova Scotia or any of the other provinces or territories, if it is a priority of the provincial government, they will bring that to the table, and they will have a willing partner in the federal government in the course of those negotiations.

Senator Gold: Once again, thank you for sharing what has been made public, but you’ll understand that some things are not yet public and I’m not in a position to share them. This shows that the government is serious not only about the principle, but also about making it work on the ground.

I’m confident that once the full details of the bill are released, Canadians will see a more robust system than what’s in place now.

[English]

Senator Plett: We won’t need time allocation. We’ll move it ahead.

Senator Tannas: I would.

Senator Ataullahjan: Senator Gold, I have asked three former Liberal immigration ministers and the current minister, Minister Fraser, when the visa office would be shifted back to Islamabad. Pakistan, at one time, was not considered a safe country. However, most of our allies have their embassies open. It has become a family station again. Canada continues to have an office in Abu Dhabi, which adds to the wait times.

I have brought up the issue to the current immigration minister, Minister Fraser. The response I always get is, “We are aware of the issue. It has been brought to our attention.”

If the Liberal government is aware of the issue, why is it not acting on it? Why is it not attempting to fix the problem?

Senator Batters: Thank you. So it sounds like it’s $4.5 billion. If there is something else, can you please let us know? Also, I’m wondering if that cost was already included in the budget that the Trudeau government just presented, or if this cost is yet to be included in a budget.

Senator Tannas: Thank you for the question, Senator McCallum. I’m not arguing that there is anything other than common sense preventing us from pressing ahead. We could pass this bill through second reading. We could consider it at third. Let’s say we pass it; that does not get the bill passed.

So if it is an academic exercise to go through, if that’s what the idea is, I suggest we do a committee study rather than a bill that will be dead on arrival in the House of Commons.

Senator Lankin: I am channelling former Senator Fraser at this particular moment. With a report like this one, which is looking for budgetary funds, she would always ask how much you are looking for. I will ask you that, but I will also ask this question: As we continue to talk about carbon footprints, and as we talk about challenges in terms of fiscal expenditures and reining in spending, why is it necessary for your committee to travel? Why couldn’t a series of appropriately established meetings be done over Zoom or some such function?

Senator Lankin: I am channelling former Senator Fraser at this particular moment. With a report like this one, which is looking for budgetary funds, she would always ask how much you are looking for. I will ask you that, but I will also ask this question: As we continue to talk about carbon footprints, and as we talk about challenges in terms of fiscal expenditures and reining in spending, why is it necessary for your committee to travel? Why couldn’t a series of appropriately established meetings be done over Zoom or some such function?

Senator Klyne: Thank you for the question. It is a good and valid question and one that we asked ourselves. The primary reason for the in-person format is that with these committees, it is very sensitive material they are dealing with in terms of internal audits and so on and so forth. They don’t keep public records on these things. Therefore, we can’t review or watch what they are doing. We will probably have some very confidential discussions with them face to face, during which they will share some information with us in that regard. So it is important to do that face to face.

They have a lot of lessons learned. They’ve been operating for 10 years now, and they will fully admit that the first few years were very difficult years. We would like to garner those lessons learned and bring them back, and make sure that we don’t make the same mistakes.

The budget? No, unfortunately, I don’t have that number with me. It was in the report, and I gave the report away — $167,000. Thank you.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. Once again, it is an important question. Unfortunately, I don’t have enough information to give you a proper answer.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. Once again, it is an important question. Unfortunately, I don’t have enough information to give you a proper answer.

I believe the government has demonstrated in many ways that it is quite convinced of the importance and need to eliminate discrimination in all areas.

I will inquire with the government and get back to you with an answer.

Senator Plett: No, you are not. You are way beyond that.

Senator Yussuff: I had the privilege in my past life of working with the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, mostly around urban issues that were very important to Aboriginal people who live in urban environments. I have to say we had a very productive relationship dealing with some of the real challenges that urban Aboriginal people face in this country, such as housing, social issues and what have you.

I do appreciate the point that you are making here today in your remarks. Maybe you could elaborate for those who are not aware of the significant work that goes on in this country in regard to their advocacy, especially in the context of the urban challenges that Aboriginal people face in this country.

Senator McPhedran: Thank you very much. There is currently no same bill in the Senate. Did you think about the fact that a number of comments on different bills in this chamber recently have been about the importance of the independence of the Senate to be able to have its discussions, to conduct its studies as senators see fit and not to be dictated by what’s happening in the other place — I shouldn’t say “dictated” but unnecessarily influenced by what’s happening in the other place?

I am trying to understand why you would emphasize that here when I think in the past I’ve heard you argue strongly for the independence of the Senate.

A corollary to that question is this: How is it you think it’s a good idea for the Senate not to listen to the young people who want to come and be heard by us as part of second reading? Why would we shut them down? Why would we shut them out?

Senator McCallum: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at 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).

I would like to thank Senator McPhedran for bringing this initiative forward and for her tireless work and advocacy on this file. I would like to begin with a quote from Ms. Diane Redsky, a citizen of Shoal Lake 40 First Nation and recipient of an honourary law degree from the University of Winnipeg, 2022.

In reflecting on this legislation, Ms. Redsky states:

In Grade 4 I received an award on a speech I presented: “why children should have the right to vote.’ I was already recognizing at this young age the inequality that exists where decisions affecting my future were being made without my voice and I felt strongly that this was wrong. I still believe youth must have a say in decisions that impact their future. Our Elders are always reminding us, responsible and respectful decision making must factor in the seven generations ahead of us. Changing the voting age to 16 will go a long way in ensuring we are all working towards a strong and sustainable future for everyone.

Ms. Redsky recently resigned as the executive director of the Ma Mawi Wi Chi Itata Centre in Winnipeg, where she brought leadership and voice on Aboriginal issues. She is a nationally renowned visionary thinker and community leader who has long worked to address the myriad of issues facing Winnipeg’s urban Aboriginal community in all areas of health, justice, education and social services.

Since 1993, she has served in both a professional and volunteer capacity, working within the social services sector. She has become a strong advocate for Aboriginal, children’s and women’s issues. She has helped create numerous and innovative programs that have helped build healthy communities.

Colleagues, Ms. Redsky — this distinguished, passionate and caring woman — is the same person as that determined youth who wanted to vote at the age of 14 so she could bring voice to the inequalities that she experienced. Imagine the positive evolution our society would experience if our youth were allowed the right to a vote, bringing with them clear eyes and a fresh perspective. This movement would represent, as Senator McPhedran said in her initial speech, “. . . the revitalization of our democracy.”

Honourable senators, speaking from the perspective of a Cree iskwêw, a woman, this bill enables our youth to voice concerns about the future of their world, expressed with intelligence and critical thinking. This would be the culmination of their request to be involved in our democratic system.

For those of you who have participated in the round table forums Senator McPhedran has organized on this legislation, you will know the respect and diligence with which the youth approach this possibility. During their advocacy week, Indigenous youth reached out to parliamentarians and highlighted priorities that they would like to raise to government, and the common issues were mental health and wellness; water, land and energy; access to culturally safe, quality education and Indigenous sovereignty and cultural revitalization.

These youth were articulate in voicing the concerns that impact their lives. They viewed their work as a serious responsibility and privilege, and they did, unquestionably, say that they had a stake in their communities, their country and in this planet.

Colleagues, in 1991, the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing studied the question of lowering the voting age to 16. Reasons to support a change included avoiding age discrimination under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and encouraging youth while young people were still in school and could take part in civic education.

In 1991, the commission carried out public opinion surveys on lowering the voting age and found that most Canadians, including teens, did not support lowering the voting age. The commission suggested that the question of voting age be reconsidered from time to time as society changes.

Society has now changed to the extent that youth and adults are very concerned about their future, and rightly so. The time is now to once again revisit lowering the voting age.

Colleagues, Canadians have spent their lives in the most prosperous and privileged place on earth. In his book Thinking like a Mountain, Robert Bateman states, at page 32, that:

To act nobly is most certainly to make good decisions for our grandchildren’s futures, yet many of us seem to have forgotten how to think this way. There is a traditional North American Native saying that could help us all: ‘We must plan our path not just for this generation and the next but for seven generations to come . . . .’ Does this sound impossible in a time when stock market traders plan for the next few seconds, corporate CEOs manage primarily for short-term profit and politicians can’t seem to see beyond the next election?

He continues:

But the questions on the other side are stronger: Can we possibly continue to live as we do, spending the Earth’s resources as if there is no tomorrow? Will our species survive a continuing onslaught of its own overconsumption?

The youth, over these past many years, have been voicing concerns about the state of Mother Earth, a reality we have arrived at through adult-driven decisions. It is time we work with our youth, those who will inherit this world.

In an article entitled “Voting Age Challenge Update,” published in the April 2021 newsletter of the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights, author Sara Nematallah writes:

In November of 2019, the David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights and Justice for Children and Youth, in partnership with other child rights organizations, initiated efforts to challenge the minimum voting age for federal elections set by the Canada Elections Act, SC 2000, c. 9. . . .

The David Asper Centre is using the 2019 Frank v. Canada court case for arguing the unconstitutionality of the current voting age. They concluded that:

Since voting is a fundamental political right, and the right to vote is a core tenet of Canadian democracy, any limit on the right to vote must be carefully scrutinized and cannot be tolerated without a compelling justification.

In the David Asper Centre newsletter, experts from the fields of political theory, international law, cognitive sciences and social sciences supported the challenge that:

. . . theoretical writings, sociological studies and scientific studies produced by these experts dispel many of the misconceptions around youth voting — most notably the myth that youths under the age of 18 do not have the cognitive capacity to vote, and the myth that allowing young people to vote harms democracy by enabling uninformed and uninterested youths to participate in the democratic process. . . . psychological and cognitive social science studies from the last decade demonstrate that youths as young as 14 develop adult-level complex reasoning skills that enable them to make voting decisions of the same quality as adults, and international jurisdictions where voting ages have been lowered below 18 have reported that youths are an engaged and informed voting group and that their inclusion has produced no negative effects on democracy. While these experts approach the issue of voting ages from a variety of different angles, they generally align on the view that using the age of 18 as a proxy for democratic competency is arbitrary and cannot be justified by what we currently know about youth decision making.

Colleagues, we must embrace the fact that there is no compelling justification that exists to continue to subvert the voices of youth. Instead, we must listen to them and support them in becoming thriving global citizens by knowing that they have the capacity to succeed and supporting their growth in becoming politically active. We can do so by supporting Bill S-201.

Let us also remember the issue of mature minors and their ability to make life-and-death decisions that we know is coming; they are allowed to make life-and-death decisions, but they are not allowed to vote.

Honourable senators, I am privileged to share the words said to me in 2015, before I became a senator, by students in three Grade 6 classrooms at Bruce Middle School in the Winnipeg School Division. They had invited me to speak to them about residential schools, and they had completed an initiative called Project of Heart.

In one of the classrooms, one group made an inukshuk from their tiles, and the young boy who was the spokesperson said to me:

We chose the inukshuk because it is a sign that shows the way. We chose colours to go with the values. The arms are red because it signifies courage and caring. The legs are blue because blue represents peace because you cannot lead without peace.

The last boy to speak that day said:

I can’t leave without sharing my work with you. My tile is about yin and yang. Life is about balance, and we have both negative and positive experiences. We learn to accept this reality and we learn from both because even the negative experiences have much to teach us.

These students are probably in university now, but I would say that they had long been preparing themselves to be socially responsible citizens.

Colleagues, our youth have been told countless times that they are the leaders of tomorrow, that they are our future. Let us not be afraid to back up these platitudes with concrete action, lest we simply be paying them lip service. If we are to take seriously our role of representing the marginalized and the voiceless, we must challenge ourselves to act now. Whether or not we are comfortable to admit it, we must acknowledge that our youth are amongst those voiceless citizens whom we must be diligent in representing. What better and more meaningful way to do so than support an initiative that compels them to become civically engaged and active Canadians exercising the right to have a say in their lives and their futures?

Let us create space to hear from youth and experts by referring this bill to committee. The intent now is to use this moment of age discrimination as a springboard from which we can actualize understanding, respect, equity, diversity, inclusion and reconciliation of and with our youth. Kinanâskomitin, thank you.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Patterson (Nunavut), seconded by the Honourable Senator Tannas, for the second reading of Bill S-228, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (property qualifications of Senators).

(On motion of Senator Housakos, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Bellemare, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dalphond, for the second reading of Bill S-244, An Act to amend the Department of Employment and Social Development Act and the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Council).

Senator Miville-Dechêne: When Minister O’Regan spoke yesterday in the House of Commons, he spoke to exactly my question. He said that Bill S-211 means that you have to look to the supply chain. But now, when I think government legislation will come on, it’s okay — you look now, he would say to companies, “What are you doing about it?”

It seems that they want to push the law a bit further in asking the companies to get rid of forced labour. Is that what you understand from this upcoming legislation?

[Translation]

Senator McCallum: Yes.

Senator Plett: Senator Gold, again, you don’t need to explain why this bill is important. We understand that, which is why it passed unanimously in the other place. That is not the argument. You don’t need to sell the bill to me; we will likely support it in this place.

The fact of the matter is that it is misleading. Don’t tell me it is not misleading. You’re saying it is a grocery rebate, when, in fact, a senior who goes and spends that money on tools at The Home Depot or on golf clubs or whatever the case may be — and I’m not suggesting that there is anything nefarious about what the government is doing, but call it what it is.

It is not a grocery rebate, so why is it called a grocery rebate? Every part of your answer, Senator Gold, was exactly what you heard Senator Batters say under her breath: “a PR game.”

That is what the term “grocery rebate” is, so you don’t need to sell your bill. Senator Lankin will help you answer this, if you need help — she is already helping you — but tell us why you are calling it a grocery rebate when it is not a grocery rebate?

That’s all I want to know. I don’t want you to sell the bill to me; I will vote for it.

Senator Gold: Thank goodness for that.

Senator Gold: Senator Plett, I am going to keep a promise to myself today to not get drawn into this, so I am just going to say this: I have answered your question.

This initiative was in response to the continuing rising cost of groceries that affects moderate- and low-income Canadians. Putting food on the table for yourself and your family is one of the most basic human needs — that and shelter — and the government is doing its part to help Canadians. It is delivering it through the fastest, most efficient and dignified mechanism it can, as any responsible government would and should do.

It is not a PR exercise. This is an exercise in helping Canadians. Those who need it the most know that this is going to help them. With all due respect, I am not going to be distracted or misled by rhetoric around how it is named or — and I am answering the question.