Vote 16 Bill

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at second reading of Bill S-222, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Regulation Adapting the Canada Elections Act for the Purposes of a Referendum. This legislation seeks to expand and extend the federal voting age in Canada to 16- and 17-year-olds.

As I said in my previous speech on Vote 16, when I was first introduced to the idea of lowering the voting age to 16, I had trouble wrapping my head around the idea. My concern was that, for teenagers, democratic participation may feel like a burden rather than the opportunity it is.

I thank Senator McPhedran for not only sponsoring this bill but also challenging me to think beyond my comfort zone, biases and belief that I knew what was best for our youth.

When I was challenged to think about expanding the voting age, I thought about my mother and father and how their generation — and the many generations before them — were already working hard at the age of 12, fishing, trapping and living off the land in minus-40-degree weather. They did so successfully generation after generation, until federal policies, legislation and religious organizations unilaterally imposed oppression.

These generations were expected to work and to contribute to the running of the household as well as to the collective. The young were taught tradition, work ethic, values and life skills to be passed on — life skills to keep us alive in a good way. This was self-government tempered with the Creator’s laws. Life was about conservation, enjoyment, purpose, humanhood and spirituality.

I approach the topic of expanding the voting age through a lens of democratic evolution. Our democratic system is a living and dynamic structure — not a static monument — and should, therefore, be treated as such.

Democracy is central to Canada, as it is to the United Kingdom. Canadians take pride in its evolution and how it has and continues to inspire. Over Canadian history, men and women have struggled long and hard for the right to vote. Canada recognized and then corrected the injustices of excluding women; First Nations and Inuit Peoples; Chinese, Japanese and Asian peoples; and those without property from the ballot.

Each generation must have a national conversation on how to protect our democratic system and culture so that we build on our advances and remove unnecessary barriers. We must continue to strengthen, modernize and improve our democracy, leaving this a better place than we found it. Has Canada not attracted people because it has always been an inspiration for the rest of the world?

The world is changing, but has our political system kept pace? If harnessed correctly, new technologies have the power to strengthen and simplify our democracy so voters feel connected and confident. Yet we have large areas throughout Northern Canada that continue to be left behind because they have been excluded from the benefits of technology.

We must also contend with hostile actors who seek new ways to disrupt life in Canada.

During my many school visits, I’ve witnessed well-thought-out conversations and questions that have shown me that Canada’s teens are using their skills to think critically and that they are not only capable but also invested in their country and the world.

Their projects have demonstrated the wide range of critical ideas that they delve into, including: What is community? How has lobbying affected this country? How does immigration impact our country? What kind of environment are we inheriting? Why is our health system not responding?

Today’s youth are very aware of environmental degradation, destruction and climate change. They are well aware that without Mother Earth with its land, air and water, human beings will not survive. They are using sober second thought more than the many adults who are driving this destruction. They are not at a stage where they have been corrupted by greed for land and natural resources. They want a good and long life, with the right to breathe clean air, to drink potable water and to live on uncontaminated land.

Colleagues, as we debate Bill S-222, let us look across the Atlantic for guidance. Canada’s Parliament is built upon the United Kingdom’s Westminster model. We often look to the U.K. for tradition, but we should also look to them for progress.

On February 12, 2026, the U.K. government introduced the Representation of the People Bill 2026: Extending the right to vote to 16 and 17 year olds. In the policy paper by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government published February 12, 2026, it states:

Young people represent the future of our country. Decisions the government makes now will not only affect young people today but will have an enduring impact on their entire lives. As such, it’s only right and fair that younger people be able to vote. Further, by engaging voters early, when they are young, and allowing them to have a say in shaping their future, we will build the foundations for their lifelong participation in our electoral processes. . . .

Alongside the legislative measures in the Representation of the People Bill to extend the voting age, empowering and equipping young people with the knowledge and skills they need to participate will be a vital part of successfully implementing this change. We are working closely across government and with the devolved governments and civil society to develop a package of additional measures focusing on practical democratic and civic education and engagement. . . .

. . . the Department for Education has committed to make citizenship compulsory in primary schools and to . . . ensure that all pupils receive an essential grounding in a range of topics including democracy, government and law. Once these changes are in place young people will benefit from strengthened democratic education before, alongside, and as part of their preparations to exercise their right to vote. This is an opportunity to create truly transformative links between education and democracy.

This shift in the very birthplace of our parliamentary system is deeply relevant. It signals global recognition that the age of attainment for democratic participation must align with the responsibilities these young people already carry. If the mother of parliaments can acknowledge that 16-year-olds are ready to help shape their nation’s future, surely Canada can do the same.

Canadian scholars have been busy. In her July 2021 master’s thesis at the University of Western Ontario, entitled From Classroom to Polling Station: A Cross-Canada Analysis of High School Civics Curricula, author Elizabeth Kozak specifically looked at the recent declines in voter turnout, especially amongst young voters. She writes:

. . . some experts have begun to fear a generational shift towards political apathy; a shift that could lead to a heavily apolitical society as the generations who value politics are replaced by those who do not. . . . scholars have been trying to understand what drives turnout, why participation matters, and predict the attitude and behaviours of the Canadian electorate. Through these queries, it has been found that there is a direct link between political knowledge and likelihood to vote.

Although the findings suggest that there is no clear link between curriculum content, delivery and intended goals to the expected turnout rate for young voters in Canada, we cannot stop there. Yes, voter turnout is different from extending the voting age, but it makes us realize the critical importance of engaging our youth early, especially in light of the reality of apathy.

The research paper states:

Past qualitative studies in Canada and abroad have concluded that locally significant, participatory, and open classroom settings have proven to be the most effective in educating an engaged citizen. With these findings in mind, many Canadian curricula have come under critique for being unengaging as they emphasize structure and political technicalities over a citizen’s role in our national democracy. . . . If citizens are better educated on political processes, empowered to act as conscious citizens, and can understand how their individual views translate in political spaces, we might see a more engaged and politically literate young generation in Canada.

That includes 16- and 17-year-olds. With this in mind, we cannot use the argument that youth are uninformed against them. If schools are not engaging students, then how do youth suddenly get political knowledge and life experience at 18, which is a mere one to two years later than 16 and 17?

Opponents to the idea of expanding the voting age question whether 16-year-olds have enough life experience and maturity to vote, and critics have claimed that the decision to move to lower the voting age is opportunistic, as younger people are more likely to vote for left-wing parties.

In the work that I do, I’m not going to paint a rosy picture about how easy it was for the U.K. to form a decision regarding lowering the voting age. 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.

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. In 2015, the proportion of people who supported votes at 16 for elections was 60%. Despite this opposition, the government decided to table their bill to lower the voting age.

In another research briefing, it states:

Lowering the voting age appears to have a positive influence on young people’s engagement. A study of German teenagers found those eligible to vote at 16 were more likely to discuss politics with their family and friends and to use voting advice apps. The study suggests that more research may be needed on “whether there is an initial effect of lowering the voting age – e.g., due to press coverage, public debate or discussions in schools – that may dissipate over time”. . . . Most young people (about two-thirds) think it’s important to learn more about UK politics. Nearly three-quarters believe politics should be taught more in schools or colleges.

It is critical for Canada to learn and adapt to the transformative changes happening in the world. Giving the skills to our youth is not negotiable. As a First Nations adult, I witnessed critical thinking that comes with sober second thought as being a skill set we had but that was removed through an “education” system. We now need to go back to our land-based teachings and become youth-centred again. This ensures the continuation of humanity.

Speaking from the perspective —

Yes.

Landon Sanderson is a youth advocate for reconciliation and recently served as Senator McPhedran’s Manitoba Youth Liaison. He says:

The extension of voting rights in Canada is a vital step in the active deconstruction of colonial governance. The voices and experiences of First Nations, Metis, Inuit and non-status youth must not be perceived as a passive resource for optics, but rather a valuable asset in the future of equitable institutions.

The voices of youth remind us that maturity is not a light switch that flips at 18; it is a quality demonstrated every day by young people who advocate for foundational change, care for elders and work in our communities. By extending the vote to 16, we aren’t just changing a number in an act; we are telling thousands of young Canadians, “We see you, we hear you, and we trust in your experiences.”

I ask you to support the referral of Bill S-222 to committee. Let us give our youth the study, the respect and, finally, the power to give voice to what is important in their lives.