Menu Close

Is Mandatory Voting Mandatory?

Student

By Ann Mariya Nedumthottiyil

“The Right to Vote is only meaningful when you use it.”

Jean-Pierre Kingsley (Former Chief Electoral Officer of Canada)

Mandatory voting has a relevant history in Canadian politics. It was proposed as a bill (Bill S-22) in 2005 and did not become law for various reasons. It is the right time to suggest it again for the same reason it was proposed earlier: less voter turnout.

Decreasing voter turnout is a real issue for a democratic country like Canada. A democracy is where the majority of people elect their representatives through elections to carry out the majority’s decisions in a country. If the majority shows no interest in the election process, then there is a high chance of overlooking the likes and dislikes of the citizens.

Decreasing Turnout

Elections Canada researched the case of decreasing turnout, and the studies show the reasons behind the declining interest. Compared to the older generation, youth participation in the elections has been declining over the years. Lack of interest, negative attitudes towards politicians and political parties, and the lack of polling information were the primary reasons for people to refrain from the elections.

The voter turnout of Canadian citizens from the age group 18-24, the future generation, was only 47%, whereas 75% of citizens from the age group 65-74 participated in the recent federal elections held in 2021. This notable difference should be considered if the government wants to protect democracy from collapsing. It was not very different for the provincial elections. The 2022 Ontario general elections had only 44% voter turnout from the 11 million total voters of the province. This is why we have to adopt mandatory voting.

Why not make voting mandatory?

In 2005, the bill did not become law because of the following two primary reasons:

  1. Restriction of personal choice

Fundamental Freedoms in the Canadian Constitution allow the citizens the freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression. If mandatory voting becomes law, this restricts the personal freedom of the citizens to refrain from the election.

  1. Potential for uninformed votes

There is a potential for increased uninformed votes if it is a forceful law to vote. Since it is compulsory, people might not look into it further and then vote for someone which will cause misinterpretation and might affect the actual results of the election.

Why we should make voting mandatory

There are certain advantages if mandatory voting were to become law:

  1. Voting – Base of Democracy

People fought for their Right to Vote to ensure the active participation of everyone without any discrimination and to represent everyone’s needs despite their various social and economic situations in a democratic government. As Abraham Lincoln said, a democratic government should be “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” This is attained through the voting and election process and is meaningless if the country has a low voter turnout. Mandatory voting will ensure everyone’s preference is represented in the country’s government.

  1. High voter turnout

Active participation of the citizens in elections leads to the political stability of the parties and the government. Mandatory voting will increase the voter turnout percentage, which is currently very low, which is a drawback for an active democratic country. A successful example is Australia, where voter turnout is 80% to 90% in every election.

  1. Inclusive government

The government should ensure equal representation from every section of the society, both majority and minority. This guarantees that everyone’s voice is heard equally in a governing body and leads to an inclusive government, a healthy way to maintain democracy in a country.

Saving Democracy

Adopting mandatory voting could save democracy from collapsing and ensure an inclusive government where every citizen matters and every voice is heard. Compulsory voting guarantees citizens’ active participation in a country’s decision-making process. It is crucial in a democratic country to listen and act according to the majority’s wishes. To achieve that goal, everyone needs to vote. By voting, citizens would develop a sense of belonging and more trust in the government. Adopting mandatory voting would ensure a healthy democracy.

Preserving Public Health: Ontario’s Battle – Privatization vs. Public Care

Student

By Amandeep Anu

In the ongoing debate surrounding the future of healthcare in Ontario, the pivotal choice between privatization and public care assumes a central role in shaping the well-being of the province’s residents. While compelling arguments emerge from both sides, the necessity of advancing public healthcare is the definitive path forward for Ontario. This assertion is grounded in exploring the principles underpinning the Canadian health system, examining the current state of Ontario’s public healthcare infrastructure, and critically evaluating the pros and cons associated with privatization.

The Foundation of Public Healthcare

The Canadian health system stands on principles designed to prioritize the welfare of its citizens. Universality, comprehensiveness, portability, accessibility, and public administration form the bedrock, ensuring that healthcare is not merely a privilege but a right accessible to all Canadians. These principles resonate with the foundational values of a just and compassionate society.

Challenges Facing Healthcare in Ontario

A comprehensive 2022 survey highlighted significant concerns within Canada’s healthcare system. Foremost among them were inadequacies in staffing, issues related to access to treatment, and prolonged waiting times, spotlighting systemic challenges that demand targeted attention. The imperative to address these underlying issues takes precedence over contemplating a shift toward privatization.

The 2022 survey highlighting concerns within Canada’s healthcare system depicted various significant issues reported by respondents. Notably, 63% of individuals identified insufficient staff as a primary challenge, while 47% expressed concerns regarding access to treatment and long waiting times. Additionally, the aging population was recognized as a significant factor by 29% of respondents. Bureaucracy, lack of investment in preventive health, and general lack of investment followed, with percentages of 20%, 18%, and 16%, respectively, pointing to systemic issues requiring attention.

Further concerns included the cost of treatment accessibility, poor safety, and inadequate treatment quality, each noted by 12%, 7%, and 7% of respondents, respectively. Less frequently cited issues encompassed the lack of choice, low standards of cleanliness, and other unspecified concerns, ranging from 4% to 3% of those surveyed.

Ontario’s Current Public Healthcare System

An intricate network, centered around the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP), defines Ontario’s healthcare system. Oversight by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC) and coordination by Ontario Health set the framework within which healthcare providers operate. Accountability to the MOHLTC and/or Ontario Health ensures adherence to standards (Ontario’s Healthcare System). The regional intricacies managed through Local Health Integration Networks (LHINs) further customize healthcare delivery to address local needs.

Privatization Argument

Proponents of privatization advocate for shorter wait times, increased choices, and more autonomy over treatment decisions. However, the associated flaws, including inequalities in access, prioritization of profits over patient care, potential cost escalation, and the strain on public healthcare due to resource diversion, pose severe threats to the fundamental principles of the Canadian health system.

Public vs. Private Healthcare

The advantages of public healthcare in Ontario, anchored by the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) and coordinated efforts through agencies like Ontario Health, include publicly funded insurance ensuring access for all, progress in reducing wait times, a focus on public health outcomes, and the elimination of a profit motive, facilitating efficient resource allocation. However, challenges such as a shortage of healthcare providers and a fragmented system persist.

On the other hand, private healthcare, while potentially offering enhanced efficiency, increased patient choice, and treatment control, raises concerns about limited accessibility and a focus on profit over care. The choice between public and private healthcare hinges on aligning with the core principles of the Canadian health system and ensuring that the selected model prioritizes equitable access, quality care, and the well-being of the entire population.

How to Improve Public Healthcare

Acknowledging challenges within the public healthcare system, the Ontario Medical Association (OMA), representing 43,000 physicians, has proposed comprehensive recommendations to address existing gaps. These encompass reducing service backlogs, expanding mental health programs, enhancing home and community care, fortifying public health, and fostering digital connectivity between healthcare providers and patients.

The trajectory for Ontario’s healthcare system necessitates a commitment to strengthening its public care infrastructure. Addressing challenges inherent in the existing system and implementing recommendations from authoritative bodies, such as the OMA, will foster a healthcare system that authentically reflects the values of its citizens. Public healthcare, anchored in principles of accessibility, equity, and the pursuit of public health outcomes, remains the unwavering guardian of the well-being of Ontarians. As the province perseveres to preserve public health, collective advocacy for a system aligned with the principles that define the Canadian ethos becomes imperative.

Is Punishing Canadians for Personal Illegal Drug Use Still the Answer?

Student

By Beth Fleming

The harm to citizens caused by substance use across Canada is substantial: drug overdoses, gun violence, addiction, school dropouts, mental health problems and negative financial repercussions.

Alarmingly, 21% of Canadians will experience a substance use disorder during their lifetime and the pandemic has only worsened Canada’s overdose crisis, yet the government Canadians elected has failed to properly acknowledge this devastating situation.

Sadly, substance use and addiction is rapidly rising, and Canada’s Federal Government must swiftly implement a new drug-related system in order to get ahead of the crisis.

Fortunately, there is another option.

Canada’s Current Policies

Punishment is Canada’s current policy strategy to prevent illegal drug use, through the criminalization of drugs. Public Safety Canada works with various partners to combat the import, production and distribution of illegal substances. The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) defines offences and punishments pertaining to the possession, acquisition and trafficking of drugs and substances.

But this act is outdated. 

Canada’s Present Problem

In Ontario, every 10 hours, an opioid related death occurs, and approximately 21 opioid related deaths occur per day across Canada. And yet, surprisingly, Canada’s current drug policies remain the same. Current drug policies have several problems, including a lack of citizens seeking treatment due to the stigmatization of drug use or being labelled as criminals, and an overloading of the Criminal Justice System (CJS) with a focus on punishment rather than treatment.

The CDSA is dismally failing citizens; individuals are not receiving necessary therapy or treatments, resulting in the hopeless cycle of indefinite drug use. 

Alternative to Criminal Penalties 

Canada must develop policies to fight crime, not illness, but what can be done?

The decriminalization of personal illegal drug use and possession occurs when criminal penalties for specific drug law violations are removed. This change excludes the illegal production and distribution of drugs. The decriminalization of personal drug use has already been successfully implemented in over two dozen countries with encouraging results. Clearly, Canada is falling behind. 

Through implementation, Canadians would be steered away from the CJS and directed towards treatment. As a result, Canadians would experience a number of constructive benefits. Drug use would finally be addressed as a health problem, drug tax revenue would be distributed towards necessary education and treatment, and prisoner overflow within the CJS would be considerably reduced.

Successful Models to Follow

Portugal

In 2001, Portugal implemented a decriminalization policy for personal drug possession and, as a result, deaths related to drug use decreased drastically, sitting persistently below the European Union average, and prisoners sentenced in relation to illegal drugs decreased from 40% to 15%.

Portugal’s model has been successful; the country focuses their resources on prevention, education and treatment. By pairing decriminalization with rehabilitation, drug use and the associated harms are greatly reduced.

Switzerland

In 1994, Switzerland passed drug policies focused on decriminalizing personal drug use and creating access to new supports and treatment options. As a result, drug overdose deaths decreased significantly, overall crime rates dropped and infection rates of HIV and Hepatitis C steadily declined.

Switzerland sensibly focused on these four pillars: harm reduction, treatment, prevention and repression. Their policies shifted to a focus on public health, which successfully decreased barriers to obtaining treatment.

Things to Keep in Mind

The decriminalization of personal drug use has potential consequences that need to be taken into consideration, which the government can counteract. 

Potential Consequences of Decriminalization

Decriminalization can make illegal drugs less expensive, more accessible, and more widely accepted by society. In addition, the resources and services currently in place as drug treatments are not extensive enough to handle a large influx of new addicts and more experimentation may occur if individuals do not fear legal sanctions.

What can the Government do?

While an increase in the supply of drugs and decrease in the price of drugs may occur on the illegal drug market, the government can utilize the freed up CJS resources to target those producing and distributing illegal drugs. The government must implement a policy that expands existing treatment programs to account for an influx of new patients. Finally, by decriminalizing personal drug use the government will ensure that the drugs Canadians are experimenting with are not contaminated through government inspection and monitoring. 

Drugs are not going to disappear so the government needs to focus on what it can do to reduce their harm on individuals and society.