Hon. Rosemary Moodie: Honourable senators, I strongly believe that every Canadian should have access to child care for their children in their language of choice, and that it must be an ambition of all governments and every jurisdiction to ensure that, one day, meaningful access for official language minority communities is a reality. I am sure that no one in this chamber disagrees with this ambition.

I want to thank you Senator Cormier for your leadership on these issues and for how passionately you champion this amendment. Although I will be spending the next minutes forcefully disagreeing with you, I do respect and admire you.

As I stated in my recent remarks, I do not agree with the concerns posed by you, Senator Cormier, but I acknowledge them. It is my view that the intent of this legislation is to include official language minority communities for the long-term.

Colleagues, I also want to remind you that Bill C-35 was adopted with support from all parties in the other place. Furthermore, Bill C-35 contains multiple provisions which highlight that funding for child care must include investments for official language minority communities. Paragraph 7(1)(c) states that funding must support:

. . . the provision . . . of early learning and child care . . . from English and French linguistic minority communities, that respect and value the diversity of all children and families and that respond to their varying needs;

Subclause 7(3) states that federal investments into child care must be guided by the Official Languages Act. Subclause 11(1) states that the minister should have regard for the importance of having members of the council who are from the official language minority communities.

You will recall that I spoke about clause 7 at length during my speech a few weeks ago. This clause provides the rules of engagement; that is, the terms and the conditions. This is what I think matters most.

In this respect, I disagree that the amendment to clause 8 would be helpful — not only because of the legislative language that already exists in clause 7, but, along with the language within the agreements and the political pressure that all Canadians can place, these factors culminate in a meaningful protection of official language minority communities and a guarantee of long-term funding for those communities.

An amendment to clause 8 does not improve this reality, colleagues. In fact, the assertion here is that for those not included in clause 8, they are not guaranteed funding despite clause 7. If this is the case, does that mean that funding for children with disabilities is not guaranteed if they are not named in clause 8? What about families from rural communities? Is this paragraph in clause 7 insufficient for them as well? If you carry out that rationale all the way, then the provisions of clause 7 are altogether useless and meaningless.

I believe that it is more reasonable to assume that the guiding principles for funding are sufficient and that the purpose of clause 7 is to commit ongoing funding to partners based on the guidance that exists in this clause.

Let me use a parallel example. Consider the Canada Health Act. We are all familiar with this act which sets out, in sections 7 through 12, the criteria for a cash transfer from the federal government to the provinces. I recall that section 5 reads:

Subject to this Act, as part of the Canada Health Transfer, a full cash contribution is payable by Canada to each province for each fiscal year.

All this section tells us is that money will be paid. How it is presented is contained in other parts of the bill. Note that no one thinks that certain types of funding or funding for certain populations are not guaranteed because they do not sit in section 5 of the Canada Health Act because we understand that this is dealt with in other sections, namely, sections 7 through 12.

This is what clause 8 of Bill C-35 is intended to do. It makes a statement of money that will be transferred. The conditions, the rules of engagement and to whom is set out in clause 7.

Colleagues, two other notes. I mentioned the agreements. You will recall that in all of the agreements — except for Quebec, who has an asymmetric agreement — there is a stated objective of ensuring the official language minority communities have proportional spaces available equal to or above their share of population.

Additionally, I want to point out the investment of more than $60 million over five years included for early learning and child care in francophone and minority communities, including supports to develop the workforce through the Action Plan for Official Languages 2023-2028.

I will not repeat all the remarks I made a few weeks ago, but I want to emphasize for all of us that, as it stands, the bill does what those seeking this amendment wanted it to do. The amendment is redundant and does not bring any further clarity, in my opinion.

I want to be clear on this: Today, a mere two years from the beginning of this Canada-wide early learning and child care system, families are still facing many issues in accessing care. We all know that for a project of this scale, it will take the better part of a decade before access to spaces is no longer a significant issue.

Colleagues, I am confident that Bill C-35 in its current form will result in generations of official language minority communities getting access to child care, to put it simply. We may not see it yet. But if we do feel an urgency, as I believe we all do, then amending this bill to do something that it is already doing and delaying its assent is the wrong decision.

Colleagues, it is also important to note that this question has been dealt with before. In the House of Commons, advocates presented these amendments. While changes were made to clauses 7 and 11, this amendment was never tabled. When it was tabled in the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, it was rejected by a meaningful margin of 7, no; 4, yes; 1 abstention.

Your committee heard hours of testimony from witnesses from throughout the country — experts, academics, child care operators, Indigenous leaders and others. Your committee, having heard this information and considering it for many weeks, voted against this amendment. As you decide how you will vote on this amendment, please consider this decision that your committee made.

When thinking about urgency, colleagues, I explained a few weeks ago my process as to whether or not I would vote for amendments. In light of the political situation in the other place, the question is whether or not adopting this amendment would warrant the subsequent delays in the adoption of the bill. The consequences of these delays may be significant.

The delay inserts uncertainty. Provinces, Indigenous governments, communities, municipalities, not-for-profits, child care workers, parents and others are looking at us today. Jurisdictions are evaluating the trustworthiness of their federal partner. Cities and not-for-profits are planning the future development of spaces and the development of their workforce. Workers are wondering if they are going to have ongoing support and whether this is a sector worth staying in. Parents are wondering whether they need to give up on their dreams or if the possibility of affordable child care is coming soon. If this bill is delayed, it will significantly harm the development of Canada-wide early learning and child care, or ELCC, and I propose that this delay is not necessary.

I will end by reading the letter I referred to earlier in my question — which many of you have seen — that was sent to all of us this past week, signed by over 20 child care advocates who are experts, researchers, operators and workers in the early learning and child care sector from all over the country:

Canada’s child care movement, made up of a broad range of diverse organizations, urges members of the Senate to adopt Bill C-35 at third reading without further amendment. It was over 50 years ago that the Royal Commission on the Status of Women recommended that the federal government immediately take steps to adopt a “National Day-Care Act” to make federal funds available for the building and running of child care programs. Surely, we have waited long enough for such legislation to be adopted.

We recognize that several organizations, including from our child care community, proposed amendments to the Standing Senate Committee for Social Affairs, Science and Technology. Most reflect important concerns with respect to early learning and child care. We believe these should be addressed not by amending Bill C-35 but through a Standing Committee study. We believe that at this stage, Bill C-35 is sufficiently robust to ensure equitable access to child care for generations to come.

Colleagues, I ask you to please not delay the passage of Bill C-35. Do not let another year begin without federal child care legislation in place.

Thank you.

Senator Moodie: Yes, at the age of 12, Anthaea-Grace will be graduating with an Bachelor of Biomedical Science honours degree from the University of Ottawa. Anthaea-Grace started at the University of Ottawa at the age of eight years old after her mother, Dr. Johanna Dennis, noticed her talent as a young child who learned to read at two years of age. At the age of six, she was tested and found to be at a Grade 8 level.

Senator Moodie: Yes, at the age of 12, Anthaea-Grace will be graduating with an Bachelor of Biomedical Science honours degree from the University of Ottawa. Anthaea-Grace started at the University of Ottawa at the age of eight years old after her mother, Dr. Johanna Dennis, noticed her talent as a young child who learned to read at two years of age. At the age of six, she was tested and found to be at a Grade 8 level.

Anthaea-Grace is a true researcher, having completed a 40-page thesis on the relationship between functional activity in the cerebellum — that part of the brain responsible for coordinating balance and movement — and handedness — that is, whether you are right-handed or left-handed. The paper concluded that connectivity between the brain and the hand is significantly different for people who are right-handed versus those who are left-handed. This is incredible work at any age, but particularly at 12 years of age.

Now, do not mistake Anthaea-Grace as simply a generational talent or a generational mind, if you will. She is in many ways a normal kid. She did ice-skating, musical theatre, dancing, swimming and she plays the violin. She loves hanging out with friends and, of course, learning.

There is no doubt that Anthaea-Grace owes a lot of her success to her mother and to her family. I want to acknowledge Dr. Johanna Dennis, an accomplished woman in her own right, for providing her daughter with the support, nurturing and environment that she needed to achieve this historic accomplishment.

What’s next? Anthaea-Grace is considering pursuing her education and is looking forward to a career in academia, where she can gain new knowledge through research and share her knowledge through teaching.

It has been an absolute pleasure getting to know you, Anthaea-Grace, and to witness your humility, brilliance and love of learning. You are an example of the potential that exists in all our children if we take the time to discover their potential and to foster and nurture their growth. Who knows? You may be back here soon enough as a witness in front of a committee or maybe, in 18 years, as a senator. Until then, keep making us proud. We look forward to all that you will do. On behalf of all senators, congratulations, and well done.

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.