Vote 16 Bill
Bill to Amend--Second Reading Negatived
April 21, 2026
Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Bill S-222, which was introduced by our colleague Senator McPhedran and which seeks to lower the voting age to 16 for federal elections and referendums. As we have seen throughout the debate, there are strong opinions on this proposal. I thank all senators who participated in this discussion.
In my opinion, this debate essentially raises three important questions. First, in principle, is it a good idea to extend the right to vote to young people aged 16 and 17? Second, do these young people have the civic maturity required to fully participate in the democratic process? Third, is it appropriate for the Senate, an unelected chamber, to initiate this reform without a clear mandate from voters?
To start, I will be frank. I am personally in favour of lowering the voting age to 16. Young people today are exposed to public debate very early on. They are interested in major issues, such as the environment, education, the public debt, access to housing and health care. They are aware that political decisions will have a direct impact on their future, which, unfortunately, is much longer than mine.
In a democracy like ours, we have every reason to ask whether we should encourage civic involvement at a younger age. In fact, a number of arguments support such a reform. It could promote civic involvement from a young age, help boost voter turnout over the long term, and create a more meaningful connection between civic education and a practical democratic experience.
It also deserves mentioning that many young people, by age 16, have jobs, pay taxes, drive cars and are already taking on major responsibilities. As Senator Senior said, what democratic principle justifies saying no to an entire segment of the population that is somehow old enough to pay taxes, but not old enough to have its say?
In addition, how many federal political parties allow young people to join as members and vote in a leadership race starting at age 16? The answer is none, and that is because the parties admit members starting at age 14. Members of the Liberal Party of Canada, the Conservative Party of Canada, the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois can vote for their leader, the future Prime Minister, at the age of 14, but they cannot vote for their local MP. That doesn’t make any sense. In short, this idea deserves to be examined very carefully. It is not just an issue of substance, but of legitimacy.
Honourable senators, even when an idea is interesting, the legislative vehicle and the parliamentary process must still be appropriate. In this case, I think we need to exercise caution. The right to vote is a fundamental part of our democracy. Changing the voting age means changing the very rules that determine who will choose the members of the House of Commons, an elected chamber. However, the House of Commons has voted on similar proposals on numerous occasions over the past several years.
As my colleague Senator Housakos said, since 2000, the Senate has introduced more than 20 bills seeking to amend the Canada Elections Act. In the vast majority of cases, they did not move forward or they were rejected. Several similar bills were also unsuccessfully introduced in the House of Commons. The message that is being sent by elected representatives is clear: They believe that this type of reform must come from them. They did not have a mandate from the electorate to make such a change.
Let’s now move on to the issue of parliamentary deference, honourable senators. The Senate is a vital institution. Our duty is to improve laws, ask tough questions and sometimes even amend bills. However, another important convention we follow is parliamentary deference to the House of Commons in matters involving major changes to democratic functioning. The Senate can play a useful and at times even a decisive role. However, it must also remain aware of its institutional limits when a debate strikes at the heart of the elected chamber’s democratic choice.
Honourable senators, I repeat, the minimum voting age issue is important. It deserves serious consideration and study. In my opinion, Bill S-222 is not the right way to achieve this reform. I believe that the Senate would be wise to refer this question to a committee for detailed study and to gather input from experts, young people, constitutional experts and Elections Canada representatives. Such a study could lead to a clear, solid recommendation and, ideally, to legislation supported by the House of Commons. Better still, this initiative could be introduced in follow-up to the election platform of a party elected to the House of Commons, where its democratic legitimacy would be unassailable.
Honourable senators, I’m somewhat sad to say that I will be voting against Bill S-222. However, I will wholeheartedly support any effort to further explore this issue through a committee study.
Thank you.
I, too, will be speaking to Bill S-222.
I did not consult Senator Carignan before rising to speak, so we’ll probably overlap in our messaging.
Unlike him, I will not take a position on the substance of the bill, that is, whether the minimum voting age should be 17, 16 or even 15. In my view, that is not the issue.
I rise today not to share my opinion on whether this legislation that has been proposed is good but to express concerns about such a bill being introduced by an unelected senator.
In 2024, I rose to speak on this exact issue during debate on Bill S-201, the former iteration of the bill before us today. I ask this chamber today, as I did then, whether the Senate, as an unelected chamber, is the appropriate forum for this political question. Today, I still answer in the negative.
I will begin by recalling the role of the Senate under our Constitution, as summarized by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2014 in the Reference re Senate Reform, citing paragraphs 57, 58, and 59 of that decision:
As this Court wrote in the Upper House Reference, “[i]n creating the Senate in the manner provided in the Act, it is clear that the intention was to make the Senate a thoroughly independent body which could canvass dispassionately the measures of the House of Commons”: p. 77 (emphasis added). The framers sought to endow the Senate with independence from the electoral process to which members of the House of Commons were subject, in order to remove Senators from a partisan political arena that required unremitting consideration of short-term political objectives.
Correlatively, the choice of executive appointment for Senators was also intended to ensure that the Senate would be a complementary legislative body, rather than a perennial rival of the House of Commons in the legislative process. Appointed Senators would not have a popular mandate — they would not have the expectations and legitimacy that stem from popular election. This would ensure that they would confine themselves to their role as a body mainly conducting legislative review, rather than as a coequal of the House of Commons. As John A. Macdonald put it during the Parliamentary debates regarding Confederation, “[t]here is . . . a greater danger of an irreconcilable difference of opinion between the two branches of the legislature, if the upper be elective, than if it holds its commission from the Crown”: 1865 Debates, February 6, 1865, at p. 37. An appointed Senate would be a body “calmly considering the legislation initiated by the popular branch, and preventing any hasty or ill considered legislation which may come from that body, but it will never set itself in opposition against the deliberate and understood wishes of the people”: ibid., at p. 36 (emphasis added).
The appointed status of Senators, with its attendant assumption that appointment would prevent Senators from overstepping their role as a complementary legislative body, shapes the architecture of the Constitution Act, 1867. It explains why the framers did not deem it necessary to textually specify how the powers of the Senate relate to those of the House of Commons or how to resolve a deadlock between the two chambers. Indeed, on its face the Constitution Act, 1867 grants as much legislative power to the Senate as to the House of Commons, with the exception that the House of Commons has the exclusive power to originate appropriation and tax bills (s. 53). As Professor Smith aptly summarizes:
[The framers’] original answer to the clash that would inevitably occur between elected chambers was to make the Senate appointed. This assured that a government enjoying the confidence of the House of Commons would normally be able to have its legislation adopted by Parliament, but gave the Senate the ability to act as a check in those rare instances when it was absolutely necessary.
As I said in 2024:
In a democracy . . . . It’s up to the elected people to decide who should be the unelected people and how to select these unelected people. For me, the issue —
— of who can vote in a federal election —
— belongs squarely and solely with the House of Commons. It’s up to them —
— the elected ones —
— to initiate this type of important reform. . . .
— regarding the voting age.
In earlier debates on this bill, in support of the opposing view, Senator McPhedran told us that nothing in parliamentary rules, conventions or precedents prevents us from introducing a bill on this topic. Yet, the reference to the Supreme Court seems to be more nuanced and probably not supportive of this kind of bill.
She stated that, in the Senate, 15 bills were introduced that were attempting to amend the Canada Elections Act in the past 20 years. She noted that one of those bills received Royal Assent — only one.
I have recently looked into these bills. Yes, since 2004, there have been 15 bills introduced in the Senate that proposed to amend the Canada Elections Act, not counting the one we have before us today. Of these 15 bills, 4 were government bills, and 11 were senators’ bills. Of the 4 government bills, only one made it to Royal Assent. This bill was introduced during the pandemic to allow justices of the peace to issue judicial warrants remotely, with the use of the internet. For that purpose, the Canada Elections Act was amended to say that this warrant could be obtained electronically. That was the sole amendment to the Canada Elections Act that was done by this chamber — it was to authorize a judge to issue a judicial warrant, pursuant to the Canada Elections Act. There was nothing of substance about who should vote.
Of the 11 remaining bills, 3 are previous iterations of the bill before us. All were sponsored by Senator McPhedran, for which I must recognize her dedication. Then, of the eight remaining bills, three were duplicates of each other, and they were about pre‑election expenses. At least one was proposing to amend the legislation not in relation to elections but to amend an annex that was referring to the Canada Elections Act in the National Capital Act. There was not really anything very substantial about elections.
Thus, it cannot be said that senators in the past have attempted substantive amendments to the Canada Elections Act, and, even so, none made it to third reading.
As Senator Tannas pointed out in the debates on Bill S-201, the track record of voting-age expansion bills introduced in the House of Commons does not provide much hope for the passage of the bill before us. The House has introduced such legislation nine times, through both introductions and reintroductions. In all of those attempts, the bill only once made it to second reading in the last Parliament, under Bill C-210. It was handily defeated at second reading by a vote of 77 in favour and 246 against. That was in 2022, not 20 years ago.
The House of Commons has not resurrected this bill since then. The result of the vote at second reading for Bill C-210 is evidence of the general Liberal and Conservative objection to the scope and principle of the bill before us, while most support for the bill came from the unanimous vote of the Bloc, the NDP and the Green Party. While the NDP and the Green Party support expanding the voting age to 16, they have not recently presented bills in the other place to change the situation. Even the NDP has not introduced such a bill.
Speaking of the NDP, I will quote Senator Housakos, who spoke in November about this bill. He said:
Then 10 years later, in 2018, during the study of Bill C-76, which aimed to comprehensively reform the Canada Elections Act, NDP MP Daniel Blaikie criticized the government’s choice to assign to the Senate, rather than the House of Commons, the responsibility for making certain amendments to the bill. He then reminded the House:
Why is it that we have to depend on an undemocratic house to get changes to our democratic instruments here in Canada?
Furthermore, I want to point out that there is no data referred to by the sponsor of the bill or all those in support showing that there is compelling support for that measure in Canada. The only data referred to in previous speeches was mentioned by Senator McCallum, and she referred to opinion polls conducted in the U.K., where some amendments were done, including in Scotland. She said:
Opinion polling done in the U.K. suggested the public is unsupportive. In June 2024, polling showed that 47% of the public is opposed to lowering the voting age, whereas 28% supported it. Only 10% of those over the age of 75 supported the change, but 49% of those aged 18 to 26 supported it.
She then quoted another poll:
A poll of 500 16- and 17-year-olds showed young people were split. The poll found that 49% didn’t think the voting age should be lowered to 16, while 51% said it should. Polling in Scotland before the change of voting age for devolved elections showed two thirds opposed to votes at 16. . . .
We don’t have that about Canada, as I said, but, certainly, I don’t see compelling reasons to pass that bill and to hear things that the House of Commons is deaf to.
In such a context, I invite all of us to show restraint and to remain committed to our role as a complementary chamber and not as a rival of the House of Commons for issues rejected by the elected members. Accordingly, I will vote “no” to this bill at second reading — not because I am opposed to the good intent of Senator McPhedran but because I think it is important to define our role and our functions. This is not only for that bill but for all bills that are coming to this chamber from the government or for bills that we are introducing, sometimes, to substitute ourselves for elected officials.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Will Senator Dalphond take a question?
Yes, Senator McCallum.
Senator Dalphond, do you need more time? Do you want me to ask your colleagues if they agree to give you more time?
Yes.
Colleagues, is leave granted?
Senator Dalphond, I entered that information so this chamber would get all sides of the argument. I wasn’t prepared to hide one side, but you do know that the country did go ahead and lower the voting age.
Yes, I said that it was in your speech. In support of this bill, you referred to this data. My point is to say that we don’t even have similar data for Canada. But if I look at the data, I can hardly say that it is a compelling reason to vote at 16 or 17.
And I will go further: If the House proposed tomorrow that the voting age be lowered to 17, would we amend the bill to say it should be 16?
Is there time for a question?
Senator Dalphond, would you take another question?
Of course.
Senator Dalphond, would you agree that in a democracy many institutions should play a role in maintaining and strengthening the democracy that we have, for example, the independent media, the courts, civil society, the House of Commons and the Senate?
Wouldn’t you agree that we all have a significant role to play in strengthening and maintaining our democracy? Thank you.
That is an excellent question. I know you sponsored that bill about gender and candidates at elections. You wanted to amend the Canada Elections Act accordingly.
I certainly believe this chamber has a role to play in reviewing legislation, including Elections Act amendments that are done by the House of Commons, deciding who should vote, who should contribute to political campaigns, what kinds of limits we should have, et cetera.
I also believe that, as suggested by my colleague Senator Carignan, the Senate could have a study on that issue and make a report that would be available to all Canadians, including members of the House of Commons, who could decide to act upon this report.
However, instead of debating this issue here, adducing evidence before the Senate and then producing a report, we’re trying to force the issue by amending the Canada Elections Act. This crosses a line that we should not cross.
That’s when I say that this is not our role, and we are doing ourselves a disservice by crossing that line. We crossed the line previously in other bills that we debated in this place, and if we cross the line too often, we are going to make the point that, maybe, we don’t understand our role. There are ways to ensure that we better understand our role, or perhaps Canadians should reconsider the whole notion of having a Senate.
Will the senator take another question?
Yes.
Thank you. As a member of the Senate, I have observed that senators don’t necessarily defer to the House when it comes to matters of the Canada Elections Act. I point to the 15 bills that Senator McPhedran has noted. To me, that is evidence that we don’t defer to them. That is an extraordinary number of bills that we have taken on and put forward here in the Senate. Senators are quite happy to be strongly involved.
Let me give another example and ask if you recall, as I do, when we both came into the Senate — the very same day, Senator Dalphond, we were sworn in together — and the very first bill that you and I worked on was the Elections Act in 2018. I recall incredible enthusiasm on the part of senators to engage in that bill. I recall no reluctance whatsoever to pull back and say, we can’t do this or we can’t do that.
I also recall amendments to the elections bill put forward, in fact, by former senator Linda Frum, a Conservative. I offer this as evidence that we, in this chamber, want to participate and don’t believe that we have to step back when it comes to dealing with these kinds of issues that are truly at the heart of our democracy.
That bill in 2018 touched the heart of our electoral system because we were talking about eligibility to vote and many other —
Do you have a question, Senator Dasko?
Of those bills, only one made it. It was a bill by the government. All the other bills were —
Senator Dalphond, have you finished answering the question? Your time has expired.
Honourable senators, I rise today to speak in support of Bill S-222, which proposes to extend the federal voting age from 18 to 16.
Debate at second reading is meant to centre on the principle of a bill. The principle here is inclusion, plain and simple.
First, I acknowledge the tireless work of Senator McPhedran on this issue. Whether one agrees or not, her persistence, grounded in research and conviction, has ensured that this question remains before us and that young Canadians are not excluded from a conversation that directly shapes their future.
At its core, this debate asks a simple question: Who do we trust to take part in our democracy? Democracy has never been static; it expands or it stagnates. Our history is one of widening inclusion. At key moments, Parliament has chosen to extend the vote beyond property, gender and race.
In 1970, we lowered the voting age from 21 to 18, enfranchising more than two million Canadians. At the time, critics warned it was too much, too soon. History proved otherwise.
Again and again, exclusion has been defended in the language of caution, arguments that rarely withstand scrutiny over time. We should not repeat that mistake here.
Today, we face a similar moment, but with clearer evidence. Canadians aged 16 and 17 are not a marginal group. They are a significant cohort entirely excluded from federal decision making despite having to live the longest with the consequences of our decisions.
Extending the franchise is not simply administrative. It is principled. Those who will have to live the longest with the outcomes of our decisions should have a voice in shaping them. Those outcomes are real.
Young Canadians are entering a labour market transformed by automation, navigating a housing crisis where prices far outpace incomes and inheriting climate challenges that will define the coming decades. They are not passive observers. They are engaged. They are organizing, advocating and speaking directly and clearly about the defining issues of our time. Yet, a paradox remains: Those with the greatest stake in the future have the least formal influence over it.
Some ask whether 16-year-olds are ready to vote. It is a fair question, but it must be answered with evidence, not assumptions. That evidence is clear. By age 16, individuals demonstrate decision-making capacity comparable to adults, particularly in reflective contexts like voting. Real-world experience supports this.
In Austria — and my colleague talked about international comparisons — where the voting age was expanded two decades ago, turnout among 16- and 17-year-olds has matched or exceeded that of older, first-time voters.
In Scotland’s 2014 referendum, turnout among this group was estimated at approximately 75%. These are not signs of immaturity. They are signs of engagement.
Another concern is about civic knowledge. This is a concern, in my opinion, that is misplaced. Our system has never made the right to vote conditional on knowledge. We don’t test for knowledge. We do not test for civic literacy at 18, nor do we do that at 81. Gaps in political understanding exist in all age groups.
If anything, 16- and 17-year-olds are better positioned than many others. They are actively studying civics in structured environments where engagement can be supported. If preparedness is the concern, the answer is not exclusion. It is participation when learning is most active.
Others raise concerns about influence. However, influence is universal. It exists across all demographics, through families, communities and media. We do not, and should not, disqualify voters on the basis of influence.
What we do know is that when young people vote, they strengthen democratic culture by increasing discussion within families and communities.
We must also confront a practical reality. Turnout among Canadians aged 18 to 20 is significantly lower than among older voters. This is not because they are not engaged; it is because we introduce voting at a moment of enormous disruption in their lives. Think about it. They are coming out of school. They are looking for a job. They are looking for a home. They are transitioning into a new phase of life, and we’re saying, “Here you go; here’s a big responsibility.”
At 16, the opposite is true. Young people are still in stable environments where civic habits can form: school, family and community. Those habits matter because individuals who vote in their first eligible election are far more likely to continue to be engaged voters throughout their lives. If we care about participation at 30, we must act at 16.
There is also a question about fairness. This is super important. Sixteen-year-olds work; they pay taxes and contribute to our economy. In many cases, they can consent to medical treatment and take on significant responsibilities. We accept their contributions, yet we deny them a voice.
Some argue that voting should align with the age of the majority. Canadian law has never relied on a single threshold. Rights and responsibilities are introduced at different stages. Voting is not a proxy for full legal adulthood. It is a democratic right that has evolved over time.
What our current system does is simple: It sets a line at 18, without testing knowledge, capacity or engagement. Once that line is crossed, the right is universal.
We do not exclude older Canadians because of declining capacity or others because of a lack of civic knowledge. Yet we hold younger Canadians to a higher standard. That is not a principled distinction. It is a double standard.
In Frank v. Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the right to vote is fundamental. The burden, therefore, is not on young Canadians to prove they deserve the right to vote. It is on us to justify denying the right to vote. That justification does not hold because when we speak of “readiness,” we are often speaking less about capacity and more about comfort — our comfort — with who gets to participate and with what they might prioritize. But democracy is not designed to preserve our comfort. It is designed to reflect our citizens.
There is also the broader demographic reality. Canada is aging, and older Canadians vote at higher rates. That is their right, but a healthy democracy requires balance. Expanding the electorate will not diminish any voice. It would simply include those currently absent.
We should also consider trust. When people are excluded from formal decision making, trust erodes. Expanding the voting age will not solve that entirely, but it is a meaningful step toward a more inclusive and responsive system.
Some ask this question: If 16, why not younger? But our laws already draw distinctions. At 16, Canadians work, pay taxes, consent to medical care and begin driving. These are meaningful thresholds that reflect recognized responsibility. In other words, equating a 16-year-old with a child is not a serious argument but rather a convenient one.
Finally, what would this mean for provincial, territorial and municipal elections? We do not yet know. In fact, many provinces, territories and municipalities have already begun this discussion, so we’re kind of late to the table. That is all the more reason to send this to committee.
My colleagues Senator Carignan and Senator Dalphond asked some important questions, so let’s tackle them.
Is this a legitimate place for us to move this issue? It is legitimate for the Senate to weigh in, to catalyze and not command, knowing that the other place can assert its primacy. It’s especially important that this chamber nudges on issues of public interest. Sending this to committee will allow expert evidence before the bill moves forward.
It is precisely because we do not face re-election — this is another reason — that the Senate can move this issue forward as an “honest broker.”
Last, why don’t we just prime the pump, as they say, and introduce, debate and study this with expert advice? Then we can send it over to the House of Commons, which will have the final say.
In terms of polling and other types of data, that’s where committee review comes in. That will provide the opportunity to answer some of those unanswered questions.
Honourable senators, we are not being asked to speculate but to investigate. That is precisely why we should take the next step and send Bill S-222 to committee. The Senate has the constitutional right to move this type of bill, so the principle before us is simple: Those who are governed should have a voice in their government. It is not that 16- and 17-year-olds are asking for special treatment. They’re asking to be included in the system that already shapes their lives. They’re already contributing to our economy, our communities and our public discourse. The question is not whether they are ready for democracy; it is whether our democracy is ready for them.
If we believe in inclusion, in evidence and in the long-term strength of our institutions, then the choice is clear. I hope you will join me in choosing a stronger, more representative democracy and send this to committee.
With that, colleagues, I call the question.
Senator Batters, do you have a question?
I do.
Senator Mohamed, will you take a question?
I’m sure your question will be an important one. However, after eight years of debate in this chamber —
Senator Mohamed, are you not taking any questions?
I will defer them to committee. Thank you.
I will be brief.
I want to come back to the comments that Senator Carignan and Senator Dalphond made about the deference that we should show the House of Commons when it comes to the Canada Elections Act or changes such as these. I heard and agree with all of the comments made by various colleagues about the legitimacy of young people between the ages of 16 and 18.
What I am seeing and what I have experienced here in the Senate, particularly when it comes to Senate public bills, is that such bills are not always the right vehicle for advancing senators’ initiatives. Often these bills end up in committee and die there. They go no further than that.
After eight years of trying, perhaps we should look into other alternatives. That could mean a study in committee. The committee could send its report to the House of Commons, where it could serve as a guide should the House wish to use the arguments set out therein to amend the Canada Elections Act. In my opinion, such a change should come from the House of Commons, not the Senate. I don’t think we can send a Senate public bill to the House of Commons and expect it to pass, especially when it deals with such topics.
My message is perhaps twofold. I think it’s important, when introducing Senate private bills, to reflect on the purpose and the objective we want to achieve, and to see whether, instead of using a private bill, there might be other ways to push our initiatives forward, without using up the time that committees require to study bills that might not go anywhere.
Thank you.
I wish to inform the Senate that if the Honourable Senator McPhedran speaks now, her speech will have the effect of closing the debate on the motion for second reading of this bill.
Honourable senators, section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says:
Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.
Each time a bill to expand the right to vote to include 16- and 17-year-old citizens has come to a vote, support has increased. As parliamentarians, we know progress is incremental.
If this bill were to reach the other place, we would be giving them the final say.
Colleagues, Canada has become an old country. We have many more older people than younger people, and the estimated total number of 16- and 17-year-old citizens in this country is under 1 million — not enough to disrupt but certainly an investment, and enough to become more engaged, more contributing citizens who will strengthen our democracy.
I will not speak long, but I will very much speak from my heart. I thank every one of you, who — over eight-plus years, in many cases — have taken the time to think about this, to research this and to speak. I very much respect the perspectives with which I do not agree. However, I hope that I will be able to at least wave from afar as I time out of this place and know that senators have decided, as Senator Mohamed reminded us, that there is an important question here — and to do what the Senate does best: to study this question and, in doing so, receive the question today, go to committee, report back to this house and allow us to take it further should we choose.
In many ways, this is a very long distance that I’ve travelled, having placed the engagement of youth as a top priority since the moment I became a senator. However, it is a very short step in many ways toward actually changing the law. By sending this to committee, we are not changing the law. By sending this to committee, we are allowing experts and young people to come, to meet and to discuss face to face with senators.
Any one of us who has ever been to a school and raised this issue knows this is not a matter of unanimous position among young people in this country, but it is an issue that is increasingly becoming of interest as people become increasingly concerned about our democracy. In that spirit, I ask that we please call the question.
Are senators ready for the question?
It was moved by the Honourable Senator McPhedran, seconded by the Honourable Senator Sorensen, that this bill be read a second time.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
All those in favour of the motion will please say “yea.”
Some Hon. Senators: Yea.
The Hon. the Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”
Some Hon. Senators: Nay.
The Hon. the Speaker: In my opinion the “nays” have it.
I see two senators rising.
Is there an agreement on the length of the bell?
Is leave granted, honourable senators?
The vote will take place at 5:56 p.m.
Call in the senators.
