Moved 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.

She said: Honourable senators, I will begin in French.

As a senator from Manitoba, I acknowledge that I live on Treaty 1 territory, the traditional lands of the Anishinaabe, Cree, Oji-Cree, Dakota and Dene peoples, and the homeland of the Red River Métis Nation.

I want to thank all the senators who have spoken on the issue of expanding voting rights, whether they support this measure or not. A rich and open debate will inevitably serve to enhance the Senate’s deliberations on any issue brought before our chamber.

I am particularly proud of and deeply grateful to my colleagues in the Senate who, during the debate on an earlier version of this bill in the final days of the Forty-third Parliament in 2017, recognized its potential and voted to send it to committee for further study. This was the first Vote16 bill to pass second reading in either the House of Commons or the Senate. Whether or not they agreed with expanding the right to vote, a majority recognized the importance of referring the bill to committee for study and evaluation. This was a clear signal of two things:

First, that we recognize and respect the importance of young people in our democracy and that their increased participation in the electoral process deserves study and our sincere attention.

Second, that we honour our duty as representatives to give serious consideration to issues of national importance.

As many of you know, when I first arrived in this chamber, I established a youth advisory committee. I created my first strategic plan in 2017, in collaboration with a diverse group of young leaders, including young francophones, who made expanding voting rights their top priority.

In fact, the first national youth organization in Canada to focus on the benefits of voting for 16- and 17-year-olds was the Fédération de la jeunesse canadienne-française more than 20 years ago. Young people continue to lead the Vote16 movement to this day.

I recognize that there are diverse opinions on this issue, but I hope you’ll agree that, as senators, we must first and foremost examine the legislative proposals presented to us. There is a wealth of evidence to support lowering the voting age, and I invite you to visit our website, vote16.ca. There you will find our collection of Senate speeches and a comprehensive review of the evidence gathered, including data, empirical academic research, documented cultural and social benefits, and decades of proven experience reports from pioneering countries such as Austria, Scotland, and Brazil. The total number is now 17.

Since I introduced this bill seven years ago, the evidence, academic studies and concrete proof of its benefits have only grown.

To summarize the evidence for expanding the right to vote in a democracy: nothing bad happens.

Dear colleagues, allow me to repeat in English: The summation of research-based evidence on impacts on democracies when voting rights are expanded to include 16- and 17-year-olds is that nothing bad happens.

Since the introduction of my first Vote16 bill, the worldwide trend of expanding voting rights has continued to grow. Relevant to the Canadian context is the recent unprecedented announcement by the government of the United Kingdom, with 70 million people in four countries, that 16- and 17-year-olds will be voting in their next election.

Prime Minister Starmer said at the time:

If you can work, if you can pay tax, if you can serve in your armed forces, then you ought to be able to vote.

The U.K. Prime Minister is not alone. This is for my dear Conservative colleagues.

The United Kingdom Conservative the Right Honourable Damian Green has noted:

The traditional Conservative response to the idea of giving 16-year-olds the vote has been to reject it on the ground that they are not mature enough, they don’t pay taxes and therefore they don’t feel the consequences of any vote they may cast. . . . The traditional response needs further thought.

He makes the case that Conservative support would show:

. . . that we were confident of taking our arguments to a new generation. We could introduce them not only to the good habit of voting in elections, but to the even better habit of voting Conservative.

He is joined by another Conservative voice. Ruth Davidson, former leader of the Scottish Conservatives, has said:

. . . having watched and debated in front of 16 and 17 year olds throughout the referendum . . . . My position has changed. We deem 16 year olds adult enough to join the army, to have sex, get married, leave home and work full-time. The evidence of the referendum suggests that, clearly, they are old enough to vote too.

While Vote16 has already been adopted in many countries, the U.K. reform is of particular interest to us here in Canada. First, our entire democratic system in Canada is based on the U.K.’s Westminster model of government. Indeed, to this day, we continue to share a common head of state. Second, the U.K. has 70 million voters, making this one of the largest examples of an expanded voting age in the world. Third, 50 years ago, the U.K. extended voting rights to 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds, and Canada followed soon thereafter.

The core argument in favour of this bill is quite simple and straightforward: We should extend the voting age to 16 because the overwhelming evidence verifies that 16- and 17-year-old Canadians are more than sufficiently mature, informed and ready to exercise the right to vote in federal elections, commensurate to the ability displayed by those aged 18 and older.

Extending the voting age will increase voter turnout by providing young people the opportunity to vote for the first time in an environment supported by their schools and their families. Additionally, we know that those who vote at an earlier age for the first time are more likely to vote on into the future. It’s lamentably ironic that polling stations are often located in high schools, even as most students must watch from afar as others exercise their right to vote.

These are not anecdotal affirmations. We know these facts because an ever-growing body of quantifiable research, mostly in Europe, confirms it — but not for long. I’m excited to invite you to two academic round tables on democratic resilience here in the Senate. On November 5, Indigenous scholars and students will explore what research needs to be done in Canada on democratic resilience, and on November 19, they will join other Canadian colleagues to further this inquiry in a Canadian context.

Colleagues, knowing that this is a debate new to many of you, I would like to address several questions and objections raised over the years, many of them procedural rather than substantive. In doing so, I hope to demonstrate the legitimacy of this bill and the vital role the Senate can and should play by referring it to committee for comprehensive study.

Voting age has changed over time as convention and societal norms have evolved. It should not be conflated with the age of majority, as has been argued here by some senators, if for no other reason than that the age of majority itself is not consistent across Canada, being 18 years in six provinces, 19 years in the other four provinces and three territories but 18 years federally.

There are numerous rights and legal privileges afforded to young Canadians that are not at all linked to majority age, such as driving, work, military service or medical and sexual consent. These age-based responsibilities are grounded on task-specific maturity, responsibility and ability to form analytically sound, independent decisions.

Voting capacity aligns with this science. It is a scientific fact that the neurocognitive development required to make reasoned decisions is as fully developed in a person of 16 years as in a person over 18.

Dr. Sarah-Jayne Blakemore, a neuroscientist and professor at Cambridge, writes:

They can weigh arguments, think abstractly and consider long-term consequences. This type of careful, deliberate thinking used in calm situations is called cold cognition. It is the kind of decision-making typically involved in voting.

Another senator once contended that “common sense” should tell us not to continue this debate. Well, I submit it is exactly common sense that says we must. We know young people can reason just as clearly and logically as adults — the science of cold cognition — and common sense demands we study whether extending voting rights is right for these times.

Another senator asked us to contemplate the proper age of wisdom to be qualified to vote. I grant it is a beautiful question — but irrelevant. Wisdom may denote sense and judgment, which often deepen with age and experience, but wisdom is not a prerequisite for any voter. We all know many Canadians, young and old, who choose to be informed, engaged and involved in their communities, to stay up to date on political events and who thoughtfully formulate their own policy preferences and positions. But let’s be honest; we also know many others who choose not to be. The lower voter turnout data across Canada attests to this disengagement. However, we do not limit voting to those who can prove a certain level of engagement or knowledge.

In fact, wisdom is in knowing that doing so is fundamentally wrong. There is no pre-screening knowledge test to qualify a voter. We simply use an arbitrary minimum age at which we agree individuals can carry the weight of informed decision making. For the past half-century, this has been at 18 years. This age was previously 21 years and before that, 25 years. Not so long ago in our history, women and Indigenous people were denied the vote, essentially deemed incompetent, echoed in many arguments against 16- and 17-year-olds today.

Consider that all political parties welcome 14-year-olds as fully capable to serve as voting delegates, entrusting them with full rights to make reasoned and informed voting decisions on their selection of member of Parliament candidates and even a potential future prime minister but, on the other hand, think them incapable of voting during a national general election.

Senators, perhaps these issues are exactly why this bill merits careful scrutiny by a Senate committee.

I want to address another counterpoint raised in this chamber — that if we deign young Canadians ready to vote at 16, we should also lower all other age-based restrictions, such as drinking. Science notes how cold cognition differs in neurological function and development from hot cognition, which is more entwined with emotion as motivation. This aspect of neurological development takes longer to mature because, unlike cold cognition, it is heavily affected by ongoing hormonal and physiological growth. That is why Canada permits driving at 16 years but restricts drinking and legalized drug consumption, which target emotional processes and physical control, to 18 or 19 years.

In the U.S., this is even more pronounced. You can join the army at 17, vote at 18, but only drink at 21. We already distinguish between these capacities in law, and voting clearly belongs with reasoning, not with drinking.

Medical research shows the higher the drinking age, the better the health outcomes, but the voting research shows that the lower the voting age, the stronger the democratic outcomes. Studies across Europe show that extending the voting age increases turnout, builds lifelong voting habits and even encourages older generations to re-engage with democracy.

As I often say, “Vote young, vote long.”

In debate on my bill Bill S-201, Senator Plett, as the critic, raised points that bear repeating, because I agree with him. He acknowledged that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms enshrines voting rights to Canadians and does not specify an age, to the point where we must no longer ask the question, “Why should we extend the voting age?” but rather, “Why should we not?”

Indeed, young Canadians have brought a Charter challenge, arguing that the current voting age is in violation of sections 3 and 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is therefore unconstitutional. A landmark 2022 decision of the Supreme Court of New Zealand held that their current voting age of 18 was a discriminatory, unjustified limitation on the rights enshrined in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Note that the drafters of the New Zealand bill studied the Canadian rights model in the development of their own.

As the critic of a previous Vote16 bill, Senator Plett cited the Lortie Commission of 1991, mandated to examine national voting age. Youth and adult engagement were compared in three areas: first, the extent to which those to be enfranchised had a stake in the governance of society; second, the extent to which they could be expected to exercise a mature and informed vote; and third, the level of participation in activities of citizenship. On all three criteria, the commission found youth on par with adults.

Senator Plett relied upon the commission not reaching consensus on extending the voting age. However, he omitted important findings in the recommendations made by that Royal Commission. This is from page 57 of the report:

Since Confederation, the franchise has undergone regular change to include an ever-increasing number of Canadians. As our society continues to evolve, it is possible that a lower voting age will become the focus of stronger demands by those concerned and greater support on the part of Canadians . . . . The voting age is not specified in the Constitution and is therefore relatively easy to change. We therefore conclude that . . . Parliament should revisit the issue periodically.

It has been more than 50 years since Parliament last seriously revisited this issue. In that half century, science and neuroscience have vastly deepened our understanding of youth maturity, reasoning and comprehension. In that 50-year time span, young Canadians have been asked to take on more responsibility and become more politically aware and engaged, and they are more directly affected by decisions about which they have little or no input.

A range of global and Canadian studies have found that 16‑ and 17-year-olds are not less politically developed than adults; in some cases, they are as knowledgeable as or more knowledgeable than adults. Similarly, Elections Canada has found that those aged 16 to 17 are just as interested in participating in various forums of political activity as — and sometimes more than — older voters, including both voting and non-electoral civic activities.

In the past five decades, countries around the world have recognized this reality, extending voting rights to 16- and 17‑ year-olds, and have seen tangible benefits: higher youth participation, stronger civic habits and greater engagement across all generations. This year alone, three cities in the United States have extended the voting age to 16.

We now have international research and resources that strengthen our options for revitalizing our democracy. I’m especially encouraged by the Democracy Classroom Network’s A Roadmap to Votes at 16, which sets out 16 steps to ensure lowering the voting age “. . . becomes a transformative step for UK democracy,” including a guaranteed entitlement to democratic education, strong support for educators and expanded opportunities for youth leadership and influence. Backed by toolkits on tackling social media misinformation, understanding echo chambers and making civic dialogue engaging, this work comes as the U.K. government prepares to table its youth strategy on Curriculum and Assessment Review, which contains decisions that will shape national youth engagement.

With Canada and the U.K. bound by a shared Crown and constitutional heritage, their leadership reflects a global shift worthy of this chamber’s consideration.

There are some in this chamber who hold that this is not the proper chamber for this discussion — that bills affecting the Canada Elections Act should be introduced by the elected house. To quote Senator Tannas on this point:

I believe the subject matter of this bill is not one that the Senate should be initiating. . . . It is, in my mind, disrespectful for the Senate to proactively seek change to election processes for members of Parliament, but that’s my opinion.

I respect Senator Tannas, and I respect his opinion, although I do not share it. Please note that opinions do not supersede parliamentary rules, conventions or precedents. Nothing in the rules prevents a senator from introducing a bill on any subject. The Constitution Act, 1982, grants the Senate as much legislative power as the House of Commons, excluding — as we all know — money bills. Moreover, in the past 20 years, the Senate of Canada has introduced 15 bills that amend the Canada Elections Act. Only one of these was a government bill. One of those public bills passed the Senate and was referred to the other place.

One of those significant Senate public bills proposed mandatory voting. This proposal was vehemently debated at second reading. One of those bills — and this may perk up the ears of a few of my colleagues — was introduced by former Senator Frum. It proposed to ban foreign contributions to political entities. That bill was referred to committee within a year of its introduction.

It may interest senators to know that at no time during any of the debate on any of those election-related bills was the objection ever raised by any senator of any political party that the Senate is the improper chamber to initiate changes to the Canada Elections Act until we came to my Vote16 bills.

It was mistakenly suggested by a senator last session that all parties opposed the Vote16 bill in the House of Commons. In fact, the NDP, the Bloc and the Green Party all voted unanimously in favour, as did more than 20 members of the governing party bravely breaking from the whip. Together, those MPs represented over 30% of the national popular vote — over 4 million Canadians — in the 2021 election.

Colleagues, we are in the business of incremental change. That vote tells a different story, of growing acceptance of expanding voting rights to revitalize our democracy, and provides clear evidence from many Canadians, perhaps especially those whose voices cannot be heard now in Parliament unless we continue to clear the way, inviting them to speak directly to senators in committee.

The evidence is clear. The moment is now ours.

I was deeply honoured by the level of support my Vote16 bills have received. More than 50 civil society organizations endorsed a joint statement calling to expand voting rights, including Apathy is Boring, the Association francophone des parents du Nouveau-Brunswick, the BC Teachers’ Federation, the Canadian Federation of Students, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Women’s Foundation, the Conseil jeunesse provincial de la Nouvelle-Écosse, Fair Vote Canada, Fair Voting BC, Franco-Jeunes de Terre-Neuve et du Labrador, the Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties, Operation Black Vote Canada, the PEI Coalition for Women’s Leadership, the Samara Centre for Democracy, UNICEF Canada and Youth Ottawa.

Being free from the biases and pressures of the electoral cycle and partisanship, isn’t the Senate best placed to initiate the long-overdue study of this important issue? By its very design, the Senate is intended to participate in the legislative process in a manner that is removed from the pressures of the electoral cycle and the partisan politics of the moment.

As our esteemed Senator Harder noted in the National Journal of Constitutional Law:

Because Senators were appointed for a long tenure, it was expected that they would not place the interests and fate of political parties at the heart of their deliberations. Instead, senators would take an independent and disinterested approach to the task of legislative review and debate, applying their thoughtful judgment without being hampered by electoral or partisan pressures.

Freed from the pressures, constraints and imperatives of the electoral cycle, senators may be able to bring a more nuanced distance to the reform of the voting age that may not be possible for an elected body, which must face the biases and pressures, both known and unknown, associated with their elective functions.

Colleagues, let me be clear: We are not asking here for a final vote on this bill. We are asking that it be sent to committee for a thorough, substantive study. That is the proper forum to examine evidence, hear from experts and Canadians directly affected and explore any questions or concerns that senators may have. The arguments that were used in the past, mostly technical, are no longer relevant in this Parliament. There is no legal or constitutional impediment to studying this bill.

The only barrier would be one we choose to create ourselves. By referring this bill to committee, we will uphold the integrity of the legislative process and demonstrate trust in the Senate’s unique capacity to deliberate responsibly and independently.

I do very much want to convince you of the merits of studying this bill, of the appropriateness of doing so here in the Senate and of how doing so fulfills our responsibility to speak for the voiceless and under-represented.

Further, as senators, we have a unique role in this sensitive issue precisely because we are removed from the pressures of the electoral cycle. Please consider the following thoughts and reflections of our Senate colleagues.

Former Speaker Furey reminded us on May 11, 2023, that the Senate is a chamber like no other. He said:

Senators are in the distinct position of being able to resist public pressure in order to do public good. Never has this been more important than in today’s world.

We are not bound by the immediate pressures of elections. We can look ahead, focus on the long term and apply our knowledge and experience to strengthen public discourse.

On April 20, 2023, Senator Housakos put it clearly:

. . . when this house was created, the “Father of Confederation,” John A. Macdonald, also made it clear . . . that this body would speak for the voices that . . . were not being adequately spoken for in the other place.

I am also reminded of the words spoken by Senator Wallin:

We are not required by law, or the Constitution, to defer to the elected house. They have rights and authorities and so do we.

That independence carries with it a responsibility: the duty to study legislation fully.

On June 21, 2023, former Senator Cotter perhaps said it well:

One of the advantages of this bill coming to us first — turning us, in a way, into a chamber of sober first thought — was that there was a greater degree of freedom and openness in the development of amendments to the bill, including amendments from the government itself . . . .

Even when senators oppose a bill, they understand that committee study is essential to a full and measured Senate deliberation.

To quote Senator MacDonald on April 18, 2023, speaking on universal basic income:

. . . I know there is no support for this bill in our caucus. However, all bills deserve a chance to go to committee. . . .

On March 19, 2024, former Senator Plett echoed this principle:

. . . I have always said that I support legislation going to committee. I would be inconsistent and hypocritical if I tried to stop this from going to committee. . . .

Why does committee study matter? It’s because public debate is often messy, and Senate committees are rigorous. On September 27, 2022, Senator Woo alluded to this:

. . . advocates and opponents are often debating different versions . . . and hence talking past each other. If a Senate committee can clarify the issues . . . that will be a positive contribution on an important public policy issue regardless of whether this bill is adopted. . . .

Senator Woo was referring to universal basic income, but the same holds true for vote 16. Sending this bill to committee would allow for expert witnesses, academics, advocates and, most importantly, young people to come and testify, enriching our understanding of this issue and informing our decision making in profound ways. We need to hear from people on this issue, and when Canadians raise their voices, the Senate must listen.

Senator Housakos said on April 20, 2023:

There also comes a point in time when we, as legislators, have heard such an outcry . . . that I think we have an obligation, both constitutional and moral, to ensure those voices are heard.

Colleagues, there are Canadians who have been waiting for years to be heard on vote 16. How will we choose to respond? This is a growing issue, and it will only grow larger. The data, the public support and the growing weight of evidence from Canada and around the world indicate as much. It is a growing wave. It hasn’t crested yet, but it will. I truly think parliamentarians and political parties have the opportunity to show national leadership and get ahead of this wave, where we can potentially direct and inform its trajectory positively, or we will likely find ourselves buried underneath it and dismissed as entrenched opponents.

Young Canadians are leading this wave. In Toronto, thanks to the work of youth organizers like Sarah Morra and Aleksi Toiviainen, along with more than 20 civil society organizations involved in public safety, disability rights, transit, democratic reform, youth engagement and public spaces, Toronto City Council voted in April of this year to allow 16-year-olds and 17‑year-olds to take part in neighbourhood polls. Through this change, Canada’s largest city has ensured that more voters will cast their ballots as youth in a familiar and supportive environment.

Sarah also addressed the town council of Port Hope, Ontario, this past June. Citing the recent breakthrough in Toronto but also in Montreal, Mont-Saint-Hilaire and Vancouver — where 16‑year-olds and 17-year-olds have been included in participatory budgeting initiatives — Sarah argued:

By engaging young people civically early on, they are introduced to active citizenship and their civic responsibilities — thus increasing the likelihood they will remain engaged throughout adulthood.

Joined by youth advocates Paaven Ghuman and Sam Nadurata, who organized a petition among Port Hope’s youth, they called on council to allow 16- and 17-year-olds to serve on advisory committees like Parks, Recreation and Culture and the Environmental Advisory Committee. The group had spent months researching the town’s decision-making processes, refining their proposal and talking with council staff and the mayor. Council voted unanimously to formally refer this proposal to its advisory committee bylaw review and expand youth participation as part of this process.

I couldn’t agree more with the words of Councillor Todd Attridge, who said on that day, “Every time youth come and speak to us, I’m always impressed.”

I also want to note the initiative of some of the members of my youth advisory in Winnipeg, Manitoba, who organized and met with council members of our city council, and Winnipeg became one of the first cities in the world to declare itself a nuclear-free city directly as a result of youth organizing and informing and making sure that councillors were well prepared before the vote took place.

Over this past summer, the British Columbia Special Committee on Democratic and Electoral Reform held a province-wide consultation tour, hearing presentations from individuals and groups on how to enhance voter participation and democratic engagement in the province. Of the 41 presentations that included an opinion on the voting age, 93% were in favour of extending it to 16.

Senator Harder has long been emphatic in his defence of the Senate as an indispensable forum for rarely heard voices:

The second chamber provides . . . a voice for smaller regions and minority interests so that they are not drowned out by the larger and louder voices.

And:

. . . it is the function of the Senate to detect and communicate the views and opinions that the representative system in the Commons fails to detect adequately . . .

This point has also been made in another way by comedian Rick Mercer. It was quoted by former MP Scott Simms in support of Vote16:

If I were 16, I would write my member of Parliament, I would complain, except if I were 16 they wouldn’t care what I had to say because I don’t have the vote and that’s the problem.

A committee study would allow the Senate to hear from young Canadians, weigh the evidence and provide the sober, independent perspective this chamber is designed to offer.

Finally, I recall the words of Senator Batters, shared in this chamber on April 25, 2023, during debate on another contentious bill, attesting that curtailing debate on important issues “. . . runs roughshod over the very minority interests senators are sworn to protect.”

She powerfully declared that:

In this place, one of our roles as senators is to safeguard and preserve the rights and interests of minorities that may be overrun in a House of Commons elected by representation by population.

What was true then holds true now. Colleagues, this is precisely why a study on extending the voting age belongs here. We have the authority. We have the independence. We have the responsibility. Let us hear the evidence. Let us hear the youth. Let us provide the guidance this country deserves. Extending the voting age to include 16- and 17-year-olds is not simply about adding more names to the voters list. It is about renewing and strengthening our democratic institutions at a time when they are under real strain.

Here in Canada, voter turnout has declined sharply over the last 40 years, and trust in Parliament and public institutions has weakened. Around the world, similar forces are at play — polarization, disengagement and cynicism. The best response to these pressures is not to narrow participation but to broaden it, to invite more Canadians into the process to show that their voices matter and to make clear that our democracy belongs to them.

The evidence shows this works. In Austria, where 16-year-olds have been voting since 2007, turnout rates among this group are comparable to, and often higher than, those of older first-time voters. In Scotland’s independence referendum, 16- and 17-year-olds voted at an estimated rate of 75%, outpacing those just a few years older. A more recent study in Scotland has confirmed that young people who were enfranchised at age 16 or 17 tend to vote in higher proportions not only immediately but also in subsequent elections onward into their twenties.

This brings me to one of the most compelling arguments in favour of extending voting to 16- and 17-year-olds: developing healthy democratic habits. Here in Canada, Elections Canada has consistently found that voting is habit-forming. Young Canadians who vote in their first eligible election are far more likely to continue voting throughout their lives. But if they miss that first opportunity, disengagement tends to persist. Right now, our system introduces voting at a moment of disruption, when young people are often moving away from home, starting work or post‑secondary study and are least rooted in their communities. By extending the vote to the age of 16, when most people are still in school and in stable environments, we give them the best possible conditions to form that lifelong habit.

Far from weakening our democracy, empowering young Canadians earlier would make our democracy more resilient, more participatory, more representative and stronger against the forces that seek to erode democracy.

Research also shows a “trickle-up” effect. When young people engage, their parents and grandparents are more likely to re‑engage as well. In other words, expanding the voting age does not just strengthen youth participation; it strengthens participation across society.

As the Chief Electoral Officer for the Northwest Territories recently stated:

In the jurisdictions where they have lowered the voting age, what they’ve found is that 16- and 17-year-olds vote at a higher rate than 18- to 24-year-olds . . . but they’re also more likely to vote in the next election, and the one after that.

I stand here today not in an effort to convince you of the merits of expanding —

Could I ask for three more minutes?

Thank you, colleagues. I appreciate that.

I stand here, urging you to send this bill to committee so we can all learn more about its potential benefits. Bill S-222 is not a radical proposition. Seventeen countries, including Scotland, Germany and the United Kingdom, are expanding voting rights at the national, state or local levels. We have much to learn from this experience. If the British government has the clarity to expand voting rights, surely this house can muster the curiosity to learn why.

I look forward to hearing this bill’s critic, Senator Mary Jane McCallum, and all other senators who wish to speak. If you’re unsure about the merits of this bill, if you’re undecided or even if you’re just curious, please send this bill to committee. We owe it to ourselves to learn more so we can do our job and keep our promise to Canadians to hear them.

Thank you, meegwetch.

Not entirely, because at 16 and younger, you can join the reserves and cadets. You can become part of the military process in this country.

I would love more time.

Thank you so much.

Senator Batters, thank you for the question. I think I did make the point earlier that we have a wide range of different ages for different functions, but one of the most important indicators of the capacity to vote is the capacity for cold cognition. A number of the examples you gave were a mixture of what requires hot cognition and cold cognition.

What we focus on, certainly in the work that I’m doing with the campaign across this country, is capacity. The scientific research lines up very solidly behind the capacity of 16- and 17‑year-olds to think through and be able to form a decision in order to vote.

I think it’s an interesting comparison, but it’s not a determinant. We’re talking about extending voting rights. We’re talking about revitalizing our democracy. The research around the ability to vote and to vote responsibly is very strongly in favour of the capacity of 16- and 17-year-olds.

The fact that there may exist a law elsewhere in our country that deals differently with age — we have many laws with many different age limits for many different reasons — should not be a reason for us to look specifically at the right to vote, the capacity to vote and the relevant evidence connected to that capacity.

Thank you for the question. There are a couple of points that I want to respond to. One is your point about influence in the classroom.

In April of this year, we had 880,000 high school students in this country who voted in the April election within their high school system, run by Elections Canada. That voting was distributed widely. You might be pleased to know that they actually elected a Conservative minority government.

The point about influence of teachers is actually not borne out by what is clearly research and practice, including this year.

To your other point about a study, yes, that is exactly what I’m suggesting, but I’m also suggesting the substance of looking at changing the law. That is the essence of every bill that we look at in this chamber. If we were the first country to be looking at this, I might be persuaded by your argument to back up a little bit, but we’re not. The research that’s available is strongly in favour of the benefits to democracies to do this.

To hesitate on this and not follow the regular procedure that we have when a bill is proposed and take the time to study it, trust our colleagues in committee to come back and report to senators is —

If I’m allowed more time, I would be grateful.

That’s the beauty of Senate committees: They have the authority to decide what is relevant to study, and I would trust in their wisdom.

On your point about responsibility and accountability, what we want to strive for is consistency: not to impose standards on 16‑ and 17-year-olds that we don’t impose on other voters. That was part of my point earlier — we all know people that should not be voting, but they have the right.

The other beauty of the potential here is that this has constitutional implications, but doesn’t require a constitutional amendment. If this were to come about, we are talking about roughly two million potential new voters.

The proposal here is to delve into exactly the kind of questions that are being raised here today and have the benefit of having this house informed by the rigorous process that our committees undertake.