Honourable senators, I rise today 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.

I thank Senator McPhedran for her commitment to young people and for the introduction of this bill. Like her, I deeply believe in the importance of sparking young people’s interest in democracy and in civic or political participation. However, I believe that addressing an issue this important should not come at the expense of democratic legitimacy.

It is precisely for that reason, dear colleagues, that I cannot support this bill.

Behind this seemingly simple proposal — lowering the voting age to 16 — lie two fundamental issues. The first is the legitimacy of an unelected chamber changing the rules that determine who can elect the elected chamber, and the second is the question of civic maturity among 16- and 17-year-olds.

Honourable colleagues, nothing in the Constitution prevents the Senate from introducing a bill touching the Canada Elections Act, but the question here is not constitutional; it is political and institutional. In other words, the Senate can do it, but it should not do it. Showing our restraint in this area is not a weakness, colleagues, but a democratic tradition grounded in common sense. The Senate does not directly represent the people, and it would be paradoxical for any unelected chamber to redefine who can vote to elect the members of the elected chamber.

As early as 2008, during the study of Bill C-29, which sought to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Minister for Democratic Reform, Peter Van Loan, issued a clear appeal to respect the role of the elected chamber:

I am hopeful and optimistic that when it reaches the Liberal dominated Senate, that it will respect the importance of a decision taken by the House of Commons with regard to elections for members to the House of Commons and the rules that govern them. I hope senators will not take the opportunity to obstruct and delay the bill in their party’s partisan interests, but will in fact respect a decision of the House of Commons about how the House of Commons should be elected.

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?

As our colleague Senator Dalphond said during the debate on an earlier version of this bill:

 . . . it’s very delicate for unelected people to decide what is good for elected people and who should be the elected people.

It’s up to them to initiate this type of important reform.

Since the current Canada Elections Act was adopted in 2000, 21 Senate-originated bills have referenced it. Only one received Royal Assent: Bill S-4 in 2022, adopted in a pandemic context. Its objective was not to reform the electoral system but to make a related amendment to subsection 175(9) of the Canada Elections Act in order to authorize the general use of telecommunications to request or deliver writs, a purely administrative and ancillary measure.

By contrast, Bill S-222 is an initiative that targets a central pillar of electoral law. In doing so, it crosses a line the Senate has always respected: that of institutional restraint. If we begin unilaterally redefining the right to vote, we risk not only undermining our legitimacy but also creating a dangerous precedent — one that could, tomorrow, justify further Senate interventions in areas that fall directly within the purview of the elected house. Once that boundary is crossed, it would be very difficult to restore.

The Senate is already the target of public scepticism. We do not need to add further doubt by substituting ourselves for the House of Commons on fundamental questions of universal suffrage.

This is not a partisan question. It is a question of respecting the democratic mandate of the other place. The House of Commons represents citizens because it is elected by them. If MPs, after consultation, decide to lower the voting age, that would be their responsibility and their legitimate right. But we, an appointed chamber, cannot impose such a reform from the top down. That would amount to usurping the power of the people.

It bears repeating that the question of the voting age is neither new nor neglected by the House of Commons. This debate has already taken place there on multiple occasions. Since the Forty‑second Parliament, at least six bills have been introduced in the House of Commons to lower the voting age to 16. In the Forty‑fourth Parliament, two nearly identical initiatives were introduced: Bill C-210 by MP Taylor Bachrach and Bill C-227 by MP Don Davies. Bill C-210 was defeated at second reading on September 28, 2022, in a recorded vote: 77 in favour, 246 against. Nearly three quarters of MPs opposed it. Bill C-227 did not even pass second reading, colleagues.

In other words, the House of Commons has clearly and democratically — and unequivocally — ruled against this measure.

That is the crux of the issue. We are not merely discussing an electoral bill introduced by an unelected chamber but a text that the elected chamber has already debated and rejected categorically. Reopening this debate here would circumvent the will of the Canadian people as expressed by their legitimate representatives.

It’s not the Senate’s role to revisit a democratic decision that has already been made on a number of occasions in the other place. Our role, as Sir John A. Macdonald reminded us, is to be a chamber of sober second thought, not a chamber of popular initiative.

That brings me to the second part of my speech: the question of maturity and responsibility in civic life. That is the basis of my argument that the voting age should remain 18.

The Lortie commission, tasked in 1989 with conducting an in‑depth review of our electoral system, already examined this fundamental issue. It concluded that the voting age should correspond to the age at which individuals reach civic maturity, that is, when they are able to understand collective issues, exercise sound judgment and bear the consequences of their choices.

This same approach was confirmed by Justice Lefsrud in Fitzgerald v. Alberta, who emphasized that the legislature’s objective in setting an age limit for voting rights was to ensure that voters had sufficient maturity to exercise that right in a rational and informed manner.

Thus, colleagues, according to both the judge and the commission, the dividing line for the right to vote rests on a certain maturity: understanding the issues of civic life, the capacity to judge and the ability to assume the consequences of one’s democratic choices.

So the second question is this: Why 18 and not 16? At 18, the age of majority, young Canadians begin to assume their own decisions, understand the scope of their choices and participate actively in the country’s economic and social life.

Justice Lefsrud illustrated it as follows:

In general, 18 year olds . . . . take on the responsibility of voting at the same time as they take on a greater responsibility for the direction of their own lives. . . .

Colleagues, I acknowledge that determining the voting age is not a simple matter. The arguments put forward by Senator McPhedran and those who support lowering it to 16 are sincere and deserve consideration. Nevertheless, I believe that certain concrete benchmarks in our society help us locate more precisely when full civic readiness manifests itself, and those benchmarks clearly point us back to the age of 18.

On the fiscal front, for example, the numbers speak for themselves. In 2025, only 3.1% of 16- and 17-year-olds pay federal income tax, versus 96.9% who do not, a proportion in steady decline since 2021, when 15.3% contributed. In other words, fewer than 1 in 30 young people currently take part in funding the state.

By contrast, among 18-year-olds, who have just reached the age of majority, participation in economic life rises sharply to 43.3% who pay federal income tax. This sharp increase illustrates the transition that occurs at 18, when a significant share of young Canadians begins to contribute tangibly to the financing of public services and to the responsibilities of citizenship.

For the vast majority of those under 18, however, participation in economic life and civic contribution remains largely theoretical.

Legally, 16- and 17-year-olds are not tried as adults under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. They cannot serve on a jury, nor can they sign certain types of contracts without parental consent.

Even within the Canadian Armed Forces, enrollment at 16 requires such clear consent, and no active deployment is permitted before 18.

Likewise, the minimum age to purchase alcohol or cannabis is 18 or 19, depending on the province, and driving remains governed by graduated licensing that limits fully independent driving until at least 18, and even 20 in some jurisdictions.

Honourable senators, voting is not a pedagogical exercise; it is an act of responsibility. To vote is to choose the government that will set tax rates, adopt the budget and define the country’s security and defence policies.

Honourable colleagues, there is no contempt in this position. Young Canadians are bright, curious and engaged. Their commitment should continue to be expressed in other ways: through volunteering, youth councils, community campaigns and certainly by political activism.

Setting the voting age at 18 is therefore not exclusion but a principle of coherence. It reflects a solid democracy founded on coherence and on the inseparable link between rights and duties.

Of course, reflecting on the voting age is not in itself a problem. On the contrary, questioning our democratic practices is healthy in any democracy as long as it respects the proper boundaries, especially between our two parliamentary chambers.

The Lortie commission recommended that Parliament periodically re-evaluate this question. That re-evaluation is already taking place in the House of Commons, where it rightly belongs.

Elected members have debated this issue on several occasions and have chosen, in full democratic legitimacy, to maintain the current threshold. Nothing today suggests that it should be changed and certainly not through the initiative of an unelected chamber. I fundamentally believe that. Preserving the coherence and legitimacy of our institutions is our foremost responsibility.

Colleagues, I also want to say this: As we all know, in politics and political life, and in the process of voting, cynicism starts to become an important element.

So, Senator McPhedran, why in the world would we want young people, who are positive and open-minded by nature, to rush to become part of a political process that invariably breeds some degree of cynicism? Let’s allow these young people to continue to be free, to blossom and to let their reflection take place with no stress, no pressure and none of the cynicism that the electoral process invariably breeds in due time.

So, for all these reasons I just highlighted, colleagues, I cannot support this bill. Thank you.

Senator McPhedran, I want to be clear. Will you be asking a question?

Senator Housakos, would you take a question?

Absolutely, I’d be happy to.

Thank you. Honourable colleagues, there is no doubt that this is the upper chamber. That’s why it is referred to as such. It has certain rights and privileges that the other place does not, even though the reality is that both chambers were put together by the Constitution on a completely equal footing. I think it is section 18 of the Constitution that gives the Senate the absolute same rights, authorities and powers that the House has, Senator McPhedran.

But we also recognize in the British parliamentary system that we don’t function inherently just by the written rules, so you are looking in all the wrong places. We also function, and very much so, on precedence. For example, we have the right to defeat a budget in the Constitution. We have the right to move bills that allow us to spend money. There is nothing in the Rules that says we can’t. But we have learned over time that we are a democratic institution, and that in 2025 — and for that matter, in 1995 — compared to 1875, the perception of parliaments has changed.

We have to be very cognizant and careful of the certain inherent rights, democratic rights that the elected house has that we cede. I never said that we don’t have them in the Constitution. But we cede them, as I said in my speech, using common sense and by being tempered in our approach, knowing what we can do and justifying what we cannot.

For example, we have come to accept the principle that you can’t have taxation without representation. Therefore, there are certain things we don’t do here. It is not a written rule. Also, I think it is common sense when it comes to amending the Elections Act and imposing on the other house rules that set the way they are governed. I think we are crossing the line and that most senators will recognize that.

How often do we ensure, in the principle of the system we have, that there is a clear division between the two houses? This is clearly, in my view, an infringement upon their fundamental rights by the upper chamber.

I could go on and on about why we are perceived as — and in reality are — the upper chamber. Just go through the list of protocol. For example, our Speaker is fourth on the list of protocol in this country. The Speaker of the House of Commons is fifth. Our Speaker doesn’t represent just the Crown but also the government. It’s an order-in-council appointment. In the other place, it represents wholly the elected house in an elected process.

I could go on and on about how we are in reality the upper chamber and how this would be viewed as a breach of our place in a democratic parliamentary system.

Senator McPhedran, you’re referring to that one Elections Canada bill that I did vote in favour of. I don’t remember the details, but I do remember it was many years ago. I’ve been here for a number of years.

The answer to the question is that everything evolves in this place, including how we approach certain things. At that time, I was young, naive and not as experienced as I am now. It highlights how, with time and experience, you become more sage and tempered in how you approach things.

Will Senator Housakos take a question?

Yes.

Senator Housakos, I am wondering about other countries, including the U.K., that are among our peers and are extending the voting age to 16- and 17-year-olds. I can only assume they have done extensive work to make that decision to expand democracy in their countries.

Do you think there’s a difference between the maturity or the ability of young people in the U.K. and other similar countries compared to those in Canada?

No, I don’t. I think there’s overlap between young people from all parts of the world. Again, I don’t see how it’s relevant to the point of my argument here.

The point of my argument is that all these things you’re highlighting should not be debated by us. They should be debated in the other place. I’ve also highlighted in my speech that, over the last few years, they have been looked at closely by the other place in two different bills that looked at the age aspect. I assume they also reviewed what’s happening in the U.K. and other places in the world.

My issue isn’t why one country has chosen to have a different age limit compared to others. That’s not the debate here. The debate simply is: Should we do it? More importantly, I’m saying: Should we have a say in it as senators appointed by prime ministers? I don’t think that’s an appropriate way to take a decision on the Canada Elections Act.

Would the senator take another question?

With pleasure.

I’m not debating the merits of the issue. I see there are strengths and reasons for and against extending the age. By the way, often when I engage in SENgage events with 15- and 16-year-olds, I get them to debate this question. I see among them young people who are for and against this issue.

Your suggestion that the Senate should not engage in this debate, I would suggest, is problematic because we would, for the first time, be saying there are certain things the Senate should not be involved in and which the House should.

Alternatively, if you take your argument to its full extension, if the House passed such a bill, you would say we shouldn’t be engaged in that and we should not vote on it because we shouldn’t be engaged in a matter relating to democracy and the lowering of the age. Am I misunderstanding your approach?

The Senate decides what we do or don’t do. We decide through debate and collective discussion. For example, through precedent, many years ago, the Senate decided that we’re not a house of confidence. We are not going to amend budgets. We’re not going to defeat budgets. We thought it was common sense.

If you look at the constitutional rights and obligations, if this place wants to defeat a budget, we can. If I understand correctly, what you’re saying is we should exercise that particular role. We made a choice. It’s not that we started making the choice today. The Senate has been making these choices for decades.

All I am saying is that when it comes to the Elections Act, it is not within our purview because we have nothing to do with it, no different than when we have a confidence vote on a budget. You know what happens when there’s a confidence vote? This place shuts down, and politicians go before the Canadian people to get a mandate.

You know what happens when we make changes to the Elections Act? I will tell you what happens. We can make all the changes and propose all the changes. The day after an election, you’ll walk into your office, and you know what you’re going to hear? “Good morning, Mr. Senator.”

I find we have those rights and privileges. We should guard them, exercise them wisely and be very careful when we start stepping over the line, because it won’t be viewed positively by the Canadian public and, most importantly, it won’t be viewed positively by the other place.

There was a bill passed in 2015, the Reform Act, for example, that excluded senators. They asked us to deliberate here and vote on the bill because, constitutionally, we have an obligation and a right to make sure that bills pass both houses.

All the political parties who unanimously accepted that bill — I don’t know how many of you were around back then; there aren’t many of us — they made it clear that they did not want us to participate at national caucuses on the House side to exercise the Reform Act. They just wanted us to rubber stamp it, because it touched upon the fundamental principles of the electoral process over on the House side. We have always accepted that principle over the last 25-35 years.

To clarify, you’re not arguing that we should be staying out of electoral issues?

What I’m saying is that we should not be amending the Elections Act, which directly impacts the House of Commons without having any implication on our house. That’s what I’m saying.

I’ll ask a question in the process. Are you implying we had 15 bills that dealt specifically with the voting age over the 17 years I’ve been here?

The Elections Act.

Exactly. To clarify, we have dealt with a lot of technical bills that have had nothing to do with anything as significant as determining the minimum age of the electorate. This is a significant decision.

There were many technical bills to such a degree that I don’t remember most of them. There was one in particular I do remember voting for. Again, I attribute that to the fact I didn’t think it went far enough that it implicated and had an effect on the electoral process.

There are many bills we deal with here that are technical in nature. We all have seen those bills. I would venture to say that if I go through those 15 bills in question, I would bet the vast majority of them were technical in nature.

Again, if there are instances — and I’m not always perfect, although I’m as close as you get in this place, but I’m not — so there may be inconsistencies in my voting pattern. There are a number of senators here who, through the years, have voted for a number of bills, and after the fact those votes don’t always look that great. Hindsight is always 20/20.

In this particular instance, I genuinely believe my argument is rooted in common sense.

I don’t want to conflate the British experience, the U.K. experience, the Irish experience or any other experience with the Canadian experience. I’m not that well versed in terms of the process through which they came to their conclusions.

I don’t know, for example, if the House of Lords participated in amending the Electoral Act over there, for example, which would impact the House of Commons. I don’t know. If they did, it’s for them to justify.

All I do know — and I said that clearly in my speech — is that in this country, when we give a driver’s licence to a 16-year-old and put them on probation, they can’t obtain a legitimate licence until they are 18. Until the age of 20, they don’t serve on a jury. They serve with certain parameters when they join the cadets in the military. We don’t try young people as adults in the court of law in this country.

All of these are elements in the debate if you want to just start considering that we can open up and look at the level we consider to be adult and when someone is mature enough to do various things. It’s an opinion, obviously, and opinions are very flexible in scope. In my perspective, if you look at the number of 15- and 16-year-olds who pay taxes or 15- and 16-year-olds who take full responsibility, and try them in an adult court of law, in the elements of law, military service, you name it, we don’t consider them adult enough to participate in the scope of those activities. Yet, we think they should be participating in the scope of voting, which I think should be reserved for the people who are shareholders of the company and are participating in the annual shareholders meeting.

For me, it’s not a partisan issue, senator; you know that. The Conservative Party in the U.K. can have the opinion it wants. I know some argued many years ago here in Canada that the Conservatives don’t want to lower the voting age because young people don’t vote Conservative, and the Conservative base is people aged 55 and above. We’ve seen in the last election campaign that that’s not quite the case. My opinion hasn’t changed just because it is politically more expedient for the Conservative Party today to have 17-year-olds vote, because between 18- and 25-year-olds we cleaned house last election. For me, that’s an irrelevant argument because I’m trying to be independent and open-minded in looking at your legislation.

We’re talking a lot about the U.K. experience, and you mentioned that you didn’t know too much about it. Would you agree that this might help your argument to know that the U.K. moved to 16 as a result of an election promise by the government? It will be initiated by the government — it hasn’t yet — but they are fixing and ready to put a bill forward, not by an independent crossbencher in the House of Lords. It will be generated after the public has spoken.

Referendums are also a way in which the public speaks. We don’t speak for the public. Does that help your argument do you think, sir?

It does. Thank you for all of that, because I will look into it. I’m sure, over a cup of coffee, Senator McPhedran and I will look at the details of how they’re going about their business. But that makes a lot of sense. Like I said, my initial reaction would have been shock if this were an initiative that the House of Lords, for example, had been carrying forward or even that the House of Commons had done very lightly. These are very important elements that influence the democratic process.

Again, it’s not a question of research. It’s a question of experience. Again, for me it’s not a partisan issue. I have read all the reports saying that it is in the favour of the Conservative Party today to expand the voting age. However, as I said before in my answer, and I’ll repeat it again, that’s not part of my consideration in making this decision. It really isn’t.

I just genuinely believe it in my experience as somebody who has been involved in the community — I’ve now raised two children of my own — and to be clear here, if there is anyone in this institution who is an advocate of young people being politicized and engaged in politics, it’s me. I started in the Conservative movement at the age of 15 as a card-carrying member of the party, as an activist who went to the convention. I think Peter Harder and I were at the same convention, believe it or not, back then, once upon a time. We supported the same guy, indeed.

I believe that political engagement is important. They should start as young in age as possible, but I also believe that citizenship of this country provides you with certain privileges and rights that are there for the taking, but you also have certain obligations and responsibilities. I just don’t think that, at the age of 15, 16 or 17, the level of obligation and responsibilities give an individual at that age the merit to have the privilege and right to cast a ballot. It is a personal opinion. It’s not based on data or science.

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to the second reading of Senator McPhedran’s Bill S-222, a bill that would lower the federal voting age in Canada from 18 to 16 years of age.

Senator McPhedran has been a committed advocate of this proposed electoral change, having promoted several different iterations of this bill since 2017. I commend her for her determination and passion for involving young people in the democratic process. However, I do not agree that the age for the very serious democratic act of voting should be lowered, nor that lowering the voting age will have the intended outcome Senator McPhedran is hoping to see.

Eighteen is generally recognized as the age at which a person achieves maturity under the law. This is why, for example, there is a separate statute — the Youth Criminal Justice Act — for dealing with criminal charges for youth between the ages of 12 and 17. This is also why teens under 18 are forbidden from purchasing alcohol or cigarettes. Most tattoo parlours will not ink a young person under 18 without parental consent and, in some cases, without the parent being physically present.

For many facets of life, Canadian legislatures have determined that a minimum age of 18 is appropriate for independent decision making. The age of 18 is a reasonable natural minimum for allowing young people to make independent decisions about serious or legal matters. This age tends to coincide with the end or near end of high school. For many young people, this is the age at which they will begin to separate physically from their parents and homes to attend post-secondary education, training or jobs. It is a natural divider between one’s childhood — dependent on parents for emotional and financial stability — and an emerging independence where one can make decisions to determine his or her own future.

Are there some young people who are mentally and emotionally capable of making these kinds of decisions for themselves at 16? Clearly, yes. And are there some young people who remain immature and routinely make poor decisions well into their mid-twenties or thirties? Also yes — maybe even forties. But to provide certainty and organization in our society, we need to draw that minimum-age line somewhere, so it does make good common sense that 18 is a reasonable limit.

Sixteen-year-olds are prohibited from participating in many adult activities by virtue of their age. In many provinces, including my province of Saskatchewan, they are unable to drive without conditions. They cannot buy cannabis or, as I already mentioned, alcohol or cigarettes. Sixteen-year-olds cannot sign a legal contract. Also, they require parental consent in order to marry before the age of 18. In some provinces, like Manitoba, New Brunswick and Ontario, teens cannot drop out of school until the age of 18.

There are some instances where a minimum age of 18 can be waived with parental consent. This is because while an older teen under 18 can be reasonably expected to have some decision-making competence, a parent or guardian’s guidance is still required to ensure the situation — and its accordant potential risks — is considered from all angles.

For this reason, in Canada, you must be 18 to join the regular military forces, but it is possible to apply at the age of 17 with parental consent. Senator McPhedran argued here that teens can join the military Reserve Force at 16, again with parental consent. Yet even then, as Senator Patterson clarified during the debate in this chamber, that 16-year-old would be restricted from actually fighting in combat.

Senator McPhedran also cited “16 and younger” as the age for joining military cadets. Youth can become military cadets when they are as young as 12, but, again, they require parental consent if they are under the age of 18. Furthermore, just because a child can join military cadets at the age of 12 certainly does not make them competent to determine the best course of action for the future of the country through voting.

The fact of the matter is we need to establish a minimum age at which Canadians can vote. For the vast majority of capacity-dependent decisions, that age is 18, and when it is lowered to 16, it is usually only with parental consent.

If capacity is the pivotal issue for determining voting age, it is pretty clear that the age of 18 is superior to that of 16. Senator McPhedran spoke at length of the difference between neurological tasks requiring “cold cognition” — decision making that can take place in the absence of emotion — versus “hot cognition,” or processes whereby emotion affects decision making adversely. Senator McPhedran argues that voting is a “cold cognition” activity and that therefore 16-year-olds are capable of that level of decision making.

I actually don’t agree that voting is not a task influenced adversely by emotion. We vote often in this chamber, honourable senators. Can you honestly say your vote has never been influenced by your strong emotions on a given issue? We certainly aren’t robots.

Marcus Roberts, a senior researcher at the Maxim Institute in New Zealand, described the research this way:

 . . . other studies suggest that one cannot so neatly divide adolescent decision making in this way [between “hot” and “cold” cognition]. Our brains develop unevenly: our “socioemotional system” (“rapid, automatic processing”) matures around the age of puberty, but our “cognitive-control system” (deliberative, controlled and reflective) does not mature until our mid-20s. . . . Thus, although teenagers have the capacity to make rational and intelligent decisions, “it is unwise to conclude that they always make decisions using the same cognitive processes that adults do” . . . .

By way of contrast, adults are more able to resist social and emotional influences and to make better decisions when the stakes are high.

One could argue that when it comes to voting, essentially setting the direction for the governance of the nation, the stakes couldn’t be higher. I think the best cognitive parallel for the act of voting would be the ability to sign legal contracts. Essentially, when an elector votes in a federal election, he or she is hiring someone to represent their interests in Parliament. Cognition for an 18-year-old is superior to that of a younger teen. Clearly, this is why the legal age for signing contracts in Canada is the age of majority — which is 18 in some provinces, 19 in others — rather than a younger age of 16.

As I have noted here before, former NHL number one draft pick and still very young pro hockey sensation Connor Bedard was only 17 years old when he was faced a few years ago with signing his first NHL contract. Thus, his dad had to sign his first contract for him.

Teens are at a disadvantage when making this type of a decision because their cognition tends to favour the immediate moment rather than the long-term view, potentially without adequate consideration of eventual consequences or alternatives. And if those decision-making skills continue to develop until a person is in their mid-twenties, some may argue it would be better to raise the minimum voting age, not lower it to 16.

Perhaps this is why the Constitution sets the age of 30 as a minimum for appointment to this chamber, honourable senators. The minimum age to run to be a member of Parliament is 18. It only makes sense that the people who elect that member of Parliament would have to be 18 as well.

Another consideration seems to be that any democratic gain made from allowing youth under 18 to vote seems to be modest. When a 16- or 17-year-old is given the vote, they may indeed be more likely to vote while they still live with their parents and are not yet independent. Although evidence is somewhat limited, studies have shown that enthusiasm tends to fade as those voters age.

A study conducted in Austria, for example, showed that 16‑ and 17-year-olds who were able to vote initially voted at a rate of 65%, while only five years later, that rate had declined to 60% — well under the official turnout of 75%.

While I do not agree with lowering the voting age to 16, I certainly do believe youth should be encouraged to engage politically. On this, I speak from experience, as I was a very politically interested child and teenager. From a very young age, I watched “This Week in Parliament” on Saturday nights to stay current on emerging political issues and to see the best Question Period zingers from Brian Mulroney and his Progressive Conservatives. I knew from the time I was 12 years old that I wanted to become a senator one day, and, yes, I know that is not normal. And as I grew older, I eagerly anticipated the day when I would turn 18 and be able to vote in my first election. I understood and accepted then, as I believe most kids probably would still agree now, that voting was not something a 14- or 16‑year-old was sufficiently competent to do, nor was it something most were sufficiently invested in.

In my case, I didn’t join the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada until the age of 18, in my first week at the University of Regina, at the start of the 1988 “free trade election.” I volunteered for my local candidates in that election, and I even helped Progressive Conservative Larry Schneider beat Ralph Goodale in that campaign.

I was later elected to different youth positions in the Saskatchewan PC Youth Federation and the federal Progressive Conservative Party. I was a youth delegate at the 1989 and 1991 national PC Party conventions.

And I met my future husband, Dave Batters, crossing the street at the Saskatchewan Progressive Conservative Convention in mid-November 1989 in Saskatoon, 36 years ago next week. We were 19 and 20 then. Dave was a young political geek too and later became a member of Parliament. As they say, the rest was history.

While voting in an election is not appropriate for a 16‑year‑old’s level of cognition, there are many other ways for youth that age to be politically involved. They could volunteer at and attend political events or volunteer to help with a candidate or campaign. They could organize petitions or letter- or email-writing campaigns for causes about which they are particularly passionate. There are lots of opportunities for young people to practise the political arts, including student governance opportunities, councils, mock parliaments, debate clubs and speech competitions.

As Senator Senior mentioned in her speech, many schools run mock election votes — like Student Vote — to coincide with federal elections for students ranging from elementary school to high school.

These exercises give students an opportunity to learn about the major federal parties’ political positions, MP candidates and leaders, and to consider what issues are a priority for them. But here’s the most important thing: They allow youth to practise political engagement without having to suffer the real-world consequences for their political choices. That is largely the difference between 16- and 18-year-old voters.

Your average 16-year-old likely lives with his or her parents, is not responsible for family expenses or bills and probably doesn’t make enough income to pay taxes they won’t get back. They don’t have a lot to lose if they make the wrong choice in an election, because they don’t have a lot of skin in the game.

An 18-year-old, on the other hand, is more likely to be making real-world decisions about living arrangements, jobs, advanced education and is often juggling these competing priorities on a very finite income. The choice they make in the voting booth has a very real impact on their own life and future.

Honourable senators, although we should encourage young people to become politically involved and remain politically involved, it is also important that their political involvement is at an appropriate level for their age. I submit that 16 years old is too premature for the heavy responsibility — and the consequences — that come with casting a ballot. Simply put, voting is a matter requiring competency, capacity and maturity.

It is for these reasons that I encourage you to vote against Bill S-222 and against lowering the voting age to 16.

Thank you.

Yes.

No, I did not.

Yes. I had the citations taken out of the speech that I’m delivering here, so I don’t have it with me, but we will definitely get that to you by the end of the day.