Vote 16 Bill

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to 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. As colleagues know, this bill seeks to lower the federal voting age from 18 to 16.

I want to begin by acknowledging Senator McPhedran’s commitment and passion on this issue. Her desire to engage young Canadians in our democratic processes is commendable and shared by all of us here. However, despite Senator McPhedran’s best efforts, I must confess that I remain unconvinced that the voting age should be lowered to 16.

While I, too, celebrate the enthusiasm, participation and increased civic engagement of our youth, these alone cannot dictate changes to one of the most fundamental pillars of our democratic system — the opportunity to vote.

While Canada has always been an electoral democracy, the shape of that electoral process has changed significantly over the last 158 years. At the time of Confederation, the Constitution Act, 1867 stated that control of election law and the federal franchise would remain a provincial matter until Parliament decided otherwise. This was an interim measure for the 1867 election in order to provide Parliament the opportunity to adopt its own election law.

It was 1885 when Sir John A. Macdonald managed to succeed in passing the Electoral Franchise Act, which gave control of the federal franchise to the federal government for the first time, and that law retained the three conditions of voter eligibility.

Thirteen years later, the Liberal government under Sir Wilfrid Laurier repealed the Electoral Franchise Act and returned control of voting eligibility to the provinces. It wasn’t until 1920 when Prime Minister Borden’s Unionist government passed the Dominion Elections Act, and a uniform federal election system was finally established and provided access to the vote without reference to property ownership or gender. Age and citizenship remained the only criteria, with the qualifying age of 21 being retained.

It was 50 years later, in 1970, when the voting age was lowered once again, this time to 18. Yet, colleagues, in spite of the significance of the change, the decision was not contentious, even though it was made with relatively limited public debate. It was marked by a general consensus and seen as a sensible and appropriate step.

The reasons for this consensus are many. More than 700,000 members of the Canadian Armed Forces who were younger than 21 already had the right to vote because of their service. Many provinces had been lowering their voting age for some time. Alberta dropped its voting age to 19 as early as 1944. Saskatchewan lowered it to 18 in 1945; British Columbia, to 19 in 1952. Quebec, Prince Edward Island and Manitoba later followed by lowering their own voting ages to 18.

By the time the federal government changed the voting age in 1970, it was not the least bit controversial, and the bill which amended the voting age was passed almost unanimously.

Honourable senators, it is imperative to note that this same consensus does not exist for the current proposal to change the voting age to 16. In fact, this issue has been considered over and over by both Parliament and the courts, and each time the proposal to lower the voting age to 16 has been rejected. In addition to being examined by parliamentary committees, the question of voting age has also been repeatedly posed to both houses of Parliament through legislation, beginning in 1990.

Honourable colleagues, as mentioned by Senator McPhedran in her second reading speech on this issue, the Lortie commission recommended that Parliament should revisit the issue periodically. However, in my view, one special committee, one royal commission and 14 bills before Parliament seem a bit excessive when all of them have so far determined that lowering the voting age is not the way to go.

Furthermore, the question of whether the voting age should be lowered has not only been considered by Parliament; it has also been considered by the courts. After reviewing the court decisions about lowering the voting age all the way up to the Supreme Court level, it is difficult to come to any conclusion other than the fact that, in the court’s mind, the issue is settled.

Honourable senators, this debate is not about whether we value young people and their contributions. It is not about feelings of inclusion or acknowledgment. The fundamental question is one of maturity, and that is where our judgment on this bill before us must rest.

The simple fact is that 18 years old is not a perfect age, but it has become the line where society generally recognizes adult responsibility and capacity. As past court decisions have pointed out, under most laws, a person is not considered an adult until 18. Those legal boundaries reflect a broader social judgment: While young people may show great potential — and I saw that during my 21 years as an educator — 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds are still in a formative stage.

The voting age limit is not about underestimating our young people; it is about recognizing developmental reality. Our laws are built upon the principle that full autonomy arrives gradually, not suddenly. Lowering the voting age to 16 would create a patchwork of exceptions that would erode that consistency.

As you know, 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds cannot enter into binding contracts without parental consent. They cannot serve on juries, join the military without permission or buy alcohol or cannabis. They are treated differently under the Youth Criminal Justice Act and must often rely upon their parents for medical decisions. We cannot simply lower the voting age without realizing that it would introduce legal contradictions that are not inconsequential. It would be like the start of a domino effect, which goes into so many places.

Let me give you an example. Section 3 of the Charter begins by stating the following:

Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly . . . .

But it doesn’t stop there. The full text reads:

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.

In other words, granting 16-year-olds the right to vote would also grant them the right to sit as parliamentarians. Both rights are anchored together in section 3.

Let me give you another example. In 2021, 13 young Canadians aged 12 to 18 from across Canada launched a constitutional challenge to the federal voting age, which is ongoing to this day. Known as the Penney-Crocker case, the case argues that limiting the right to vote based upon age is discriminatory and unjustifiable, especially as children represent nearly a quarter of the population yet remain disenfranchised.

Normally, because most of the litigants were under the age of 18 when the case began, a litigation guardian would have been appointed to represent their interests and make decisions on their behalf during the litigation process. A litigation guardian is required in court proceedings when a party involved is considered to be “under a disability,” meaning that they legally cannot manage their own legal affairs or represent themselves. This typically includes minors and individuals who are mentally incapable of making decisions related to the proceedings.

However, early in the proceedings, the court was asked by the plaintiffs to dispense with the requirement for a litigation guardian, and the government did not oppose the motion.

This illustrates the legal contradictions that lowering the voting age will introduce. Recognizing 16-year-olds as voters creates a compelling argument that they may also possess sufficient judgment and capacity to participate in court proceedings without a guardian, especially if their capacity to fulfill their civic duties is seen as indicative of their overall maturity. This argument could influence legal reforms or judicial decisions to lower the age or waive the guardian requirement, aligning the legal decision-making age with voting rights and other civil capacities.

Even UNICEF, which supports the lowering of the voting age, has acknowledged that doing so would introduce these legal contradictions. In their 2024 report entitled Lowering the Voting Age: UNICEF Canada Policy Brief, they said that these contradictions highlight a complex interplay between extending democratic participation to younger citizens and maintaining protective legal frameworks that treat those under 18 as minors needing special protection, such as litigation guardianship in court. The move to lower the voting age would require careful legislative and policy adjustments to resolve conflicts between these different areas of law and practice.

That, honourable senators, should give us pause.

Based upon some of the speeches presented thus far in support of this bill, we are left with the impression that granting voting rights to 16-year-olds is a rising tide that will eventually carry us all, and we just need to acknowledge it and get on board. To quote Senator McPhedran, “Since the introduction of my first Vote16 bill, the worldwide trend of expanding voting rights has continued to grow. . . .”

She noted there are now 17 countries that have lowered their voting age, including Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Nicaragua, the Isle of Man, Guernsey, Jersey, Malta, Scotland, Wales, Slovenia and Switzerland — it’s quite a list. In addition, the U.K. government has also confirmed its intention to lower the voting age to 16 before the next general election.

I’ll admit that at first glance, this can seem like a compelling argument, but I believe we need to look a little deeper to properly understand the context of what happened in each of these countries that lowered their voting age to 16.

In the Dominican Republic, 16-year-olds can only vote if they are married. In Estonia, they can only vote in some local elections. In Germany, they can vote in some local and state elections and in EU elections for the European Parliament. In Hungary, 16-year-olds must be married to vote. In Slovenia, 16‑year‑olds cannot vote if they are unemployed. In Switzerland, 16‑year‑olds can only vote in the canton of Glarus and only for cantonal and local elections. On the Isle of Man, it is local elections only. In Guernsey, it is for local elections only. In Jersey, it is for local elections only. In Scotland, it is for the Scottish Parliament and local elections only. In Wales, it applies to the Welsh Parliament and local elections only.

Do you see the pattern, honourable senators?

As noted in a September 2025 research briefing by the U.K. House of Commons Library, “Few countries so far have lowered the voting age for national elections.” A 2024 OECD publication clarifies that the minimum age to vote in national elections is 18 years old in all OECD countries, except Austria which is 16 years old and Greece which is 17 years old. Furthermore, if you look at those countries that have lowered their voting age for national elections, almost all of those were preceded by earlier changes to the voting age at the local or subnational level.

This trend of beginning on a local or subnational level is not without exception, but it is very consistent.

Consider our own history: When Canada lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 in 1970, that decision did not appear overnight; it was the culmination of 25 years of gradual change. Provinces had already moved in that direction. As I said earlier, Alberta did so in 1944, Saskatchewan did so in 1945, British Columbia did so in 1952 and several others did so soon after. By the time Parliament acted, the idea was neither new nor controversial; it reflected the broad acceptance that 18 years old was the new standard of adulthood.

Here is why that is significant to our debate: In my view, a shift in the voting age should reflect public consensus, not an attempt to create it. It should follow a visible evolution in social norms and civic practices, not try to lead them by legislative decree.

We have not seen that process with this proposal to lower the voting age to 16.

The most recent comprehensive findings are from the Elections Canada 2021 Generation Z report, showing 50% support among 16- and 17-year-olds but under 25% among those 35 years of age and older.

Senator Martin, your time has expired. Would you like more time to finish your speech?

Yes, I appeal to my colleagues to grant me a bit more time.

Is leave granted?

Thank you, colleagues.

I would note that no provinces have moved to lower their voting age for provincial elections. That’s a really important point. Only a few municipalities have experimented with youth engagement, but none have extended the franchise yet. Some may. I have heard that Vancouver is considering it, but that has not yet happened.

By contrast, in countries often cited as examples, such as the United Kingdom, changes at the national level came only after years of experience at the local level. Here in Canada, there is no comparable pattern. Adopting this change federally would put Parliament ahead of public sentiment and provincial practice. It would invert the natural order of democratic reform, which, I believe, is a dangerous thing.

I would propose that if lowering the voting age is indeed the right path, then let it begin where democratic participation is most immediate: at the local level through municipal experiments and provincial debates. Let Canadians see the results. Let the case be made, tested and proven — not imposed.

I was going to talk about my personal experience as a teacher. I won’t go into all that, except to say that we have to remember that 16- and 17-year-olds are a captive audience in a classroom. They often spend more time with teachers than they do with other adults in their lives, including their own parents, so we would also need to prepare the classrooms and the educational system to be able to accommodate and ensure the integrity of what happens in schools. If they were to be allowed to vote, we would have to prepare for that. My colleagues in the teaching system are amazing professionals, but I do know that preparations need to be made.

Instead of lowering the voting age to 16, we should continue to do exactly what has already been happening: Let’s engage our young people through education, such as participating in excellent programs like student votes, mock debates, youth parliaments and other experiential learning programs and conferences, through volunteering and leadership experiences, like student councils and district councils, so that, when they do cast their first ballot at the age of 18, they do so with the full maturity and independence that citizenship deserves.

Colleagues, though I could not expand on everything, I ask you to consider my reasoning for why I cannot support Bill S-222 at second reading. Thank you.

Senator McPhedran, do you have a question?

Senator Martin, will you take a question? If so, you will need to request leave for more time.

Yes, I realize how close we are to three o’clock, so maybe one question, Senator McPhedran. I would like to request more time.

Is leave granted for one question?

I stand corrected then. I knew Vancouver was considering it, but that’s a good number. That also supports my position that we should absolutely look at what we can do municipally and then let the provinces make those decisions. Then, as the federal Parliament, we can look at that after a great deal of progress has been made. I’m happy to hear that has happened, and thank you for your activism and passion on this issue.

You asked leave for one question. Senator Martin, will you take another question? If so, you will need to request leave for more time again.

If the chamber is willing, I request more time.

Is leave granted?

In response, I will simply say this: Of the countries that have lowered their voting age federally, we have consistently seen that it begins from the ground up. It makes sense that younger voters can be engaged in schools and their local communities. To me, that just seems to be the natural progression, rather than the Senate imposing it on the nation without the readiness I’ve identified in various areas, which suggests that we do need to prepare as a country. Seventeen municipalities is great progress, and we shall see what happens going forward.