Vote 16 Bill

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak in support of Bill S-222.

I can tell you that every year, 4-H Canada youth delegates from across the country visit Ottawa to participate in their annual Citizenship Congress, and they sit in this very chamber and undertake a mock debate on timely issues and topics related to our youth. It is a great event, and I sometimes even get to sit in the Usher of the Black Rod’s chair.

One of the topics debated during one of these mock debates in the past put the question forward on whether the government should lower the voting age to 16. I was genuinely impressed by the way these young leaders were engaging in civic discourse and expressing their opinions in this very chamber.

While both sides of the issue are always debated during their mock discussions, the majority of these young Canadians supported changing the voting age to 16. In fact, when this question was put forward in 2019, 4-H members again voiced the same opinion: The voting age should change to 16.

One young participant who attended the 2019 4-H Citizenship Congress shared that if given the opportunity, she would have voted at 16. The main barrier, she highlighted, for youth voter engagement was the lack of information around the voting process. I wholeheartedly agree with this individual and echo her sentiments that:

. . . a crucial part of lowering the voting age would be to promote the information necessary for youth to make educated decisions.

I think it’s easy for some of us, especially those of us who are no longer young, to dismiss the idea and say that 16-year-olds don’t have the knowledge or the interest to make an informed decision. I, for one, don’t think this is true. At 16 years of age, we hand our children the keys to a vehicle, and we give them the ability to get married or join the military, all of which require both maturity and responsibility.

Furthermore, 16- and 17-year-olds are old enough to work and pay taxes, yet they have no say in the way their tax money is spent by government. I see it as a slap in the face to 16- and 17‑year-olds to tell them that they can do all these things, but they can’t vote.

We teach our teenagers to take responsibility for themselves and to make smart decisions about their futures, their friends and their relationships. Allowing them to vote at 16 is another way to show that we have faith in our youth that they can make responsible decisions.

When we say that they shouldn’t vote because they’re not mature enough, we do our youth a disservice. Anyone who spends a lot of time around youth can tell you that many are very politically engaged and interested in social issues.

According to Statistics Canada, youth are among the most socially engaged. Between 2021 and 2024, 66% of youth between the ages of 15 and 19 were part of a group, organization or association, with this proportion decreasing with age. We just cannot assume that our youth are apathetic.

Many of our youth are very political, but they engage in this world in different spaces than we may be familiar with. Over the past year, we have seen young people pour into the streets to call for equality, an end to racial injustice and to bring attention to the global climate crisis. Of course, not all of them are knowledgeable about politics and current events, but I could say the same thing about 18-year-olds or 30-year-olds or 65-year-olds. Knowledge and experience shouldn’t be criteria for voting.

All Canadians get to vote because they’re Canadian citizens, not because they pass some sort of a test of their knowledge and their politics. Youth are our future and are just as affected as adults by the results of any election. In fact, there are many important policy issues that will affect them more than they will affect us, such as environmental protection. Allowing them to vote at 16 will help youth feel empowered and give them agency in a political system that they are directly affected by.

As I noted above, education will be key to engaging youth and allowing them to make more informed decisions. School curricula should be adapted to ensure that students are educated about elections, candidates and platforms in a non-partisan manner. Teachers could help students make sure they get registered to vote. Classroom learning could provide the opportunity to equip students with the knowledge and tools they need to vote — real, hands-on learning. The 4-H motto is “Learn To Do By Doing,” which is especially appropriate when involving youth.

Published in 2021, Canada’s First State of Youth Report: For Youth, With Youth, By Youth stated:

To give youth greater agency and participation, it is important that the voting age in Canada be lowered from 18 to 16.

I could not agree more with this sentiment. In fact, the final recommendation of the report called on governments to provide youth with more opportunities to transfer knowledge to decision makers via direct participation. We can do this by following our young people’s recommendation to “. . . urgently prioritize lowering the voting age for youth from 18 to 16.”

Here in the Senate of Canada, we have a great program called SENgage. At SENgage, they work hard on outreach to grade schools, high schools and universities and colleges to bring further understanding of our political system to a younger generation. I am very proud to support this program in any way I can, having visited numerous schools across Ontario and virtually talking with many schools across the country about the Senate. This is just one example of how schools can be more involved in helping youth to vote and understand the voting process.

After over 45 years of involvement with 4-H’s youth development program across Canada, I am dedicated to supporting, representing and engaging with youth as a senator. During one of my visits to a Grade 7 class in Ontario, I posed the question of lowering the voting age to some students. Even at 12 years old, many of them had interesting opinions to discuss with their classmates. Regardless of whether they were supportive of the bill, I am heartened by the discussion they engaged in on this important topic.

Colleagues, it’s time to show our support for our youth by voting in favour of this bill. Voting is habitual. Getting youth to vote early on increases the likelihood that they will continue to vote and, perhaps, engage politically in other ways throughout their lives. We can’t continue to talk about youth as the future and praise them for the value they add to our society but deny them the agency to take direct action and be part of a system that they’re paying into.

I will, therefore, be voting in favour of Bill S-222.

Colleagues, thank you for your time. Meegwetch.

Absolutely.

Thank you for your comment. I will concede that some parental consent is needed for those under 18. I still think it’s important that we allow them that opportunity should they wish to vote.

Thank you very much, Senator Black, and welcome to the bearded club.

As well, colleagues, on behalf of us all, I wish Senator Iris Petten, my fellow Newfoundlander and Labradorian, a very happy birthday.

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak in support of Bill S-222 and to thank Senator McPhedran for her advocacy.

Colleagues, I feel this bill is not a radical departure from our democratic tradition but the next logical step in the long history of expanding the franchise in Canada. At Confederation, the federal voting age was 21, and it remained so until Parliament chose to lower it to 18 in 1970, responding to social change and the growing expectation that younger citizens should have a voice.

In exactly the same way, we are now called to ask whether the current age limit still reflects our values of inclusion, equality and respect for the rights of all citizens. Section 3 of the Charter guarantees every Canadian citizen the right to vote without specifying an age, while section 15 protects against discrimination, including on the basis of age. The age of 18 is therefore not a constitutional truth; it is a policy choice made in legislation and, as with past choices, it can and should evolve.

We already trust 16- and 17-year-olds with very serious responsibilities. They can work, pay taxes, drive, consent to medical treatment and — as has been alluded to — with parental consent, may join certain aspects of the Canadian Armed Forces. Many of them contribute to their families’ income and our economy, paying into public systems they cannot yet help to shape at the ballot box. If we recognize their capacity in so many other domains, it is difficult to justify why they are considered competent to shoulder obligations but not competent to exercise the fundamental right that underpins all others: the right to vote.

Lowering the voting age would also strengthen civic engagement and democratic health. Youth-led organizations across this country, including Vote16 Canada, Young Politicians of Canada and 4-H, have demonstrated that 16- and 17-year-olds are eager to participate and are already organizing to be heard. Research and experience in other jurisdictions indicate that when people cast their first ballot earlier, at a time when they are still in school, rooted in their communities and supported by structured civics education, they are more likely to become lifelong voters. A standardized, modern civics curriculum, paired with the right to vote at 16, would turn the classroom into preparation for real democratic participation, not just abstract study of institutions.

Internationally, Canada is at risk of falling behind comparable democracies that are choosing to trust and empower younger voters. The United Kingdom has announced its intention to lower the national voting age, building on the successful experience of Scotland and Wales, while other jurisdictions, like Austria, Brazil, Argentina and Ecuador, fully endorse voting at 16. When our allies move in this direction, they do so not as an experiment in radical politics but as a measured response to concerns about declining trust and disengagement and the need to renew democratic legitimacy.

Canada, which once showed leadership by lowering the age from 21 to 18, should not now, in the words of one young Canadian advocate, “. . . live in the shadow of other countries’ innovation.”

Some colleagues and commentators express concern about the maturity and knowledge of 16-year-olds, yet those concerns are often grounded in stereotypes rather than evidence. We know that many adults of all ages also struggle with civic literacy. The answer is to improve political education for everyone and not to withhold rights from a particular group of citizens.

Political parties across the spectrum already welcome youth members, recognizing that young people can meaningfully contribute to political debate, policy development and leadership contests, as was so eloquently expressed just now by Senator Denise Batters. It would be inconsistent and unfair to value their energy inside party structures while denying them a say in the general elections that determine who governs the country.

Colleagues, by lowering the voting age to 16, we would extend the franchise to hundreds of thousands of young Canadians whose futures are directly shaped by our decisions on climate policy, public finances, education and digital regulation. We would signal that we see them not as problems to be managed but as partners in the shared project of Canadian democracy.

This chamber has a proud tradition of championing rights that were once controversial and are now taken for granted. So I urge you to see this proposal in light of the fact that we are an evolving democracy and to support giving 16- and 17-year-olds full rights of citizenship at the ballot box.

Thank you. Meegwetch.