Vote 16 Bill

Honourable senators, I rise today on the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation to speak to the second reading of Bill S-222.

This bill is an important piece of legislation that proposes to amend the Canada Elections Act to expand the franchise to all Canadian citizens aged 16 and 17.

I would like to express my appreciation to Senator McPhedran for sponsoring and moving this bill forward.

For my entire professional career, and now here in this distinguished chamber, my focus has been on the dismantling of systemic barriers and the empowerment of marginalized people. These barriers are often built on arbitrary classifications, whether they are based on race, sex, gender, gender identity, economic status or the intersection of such characteristics. I can tell you, without doubt, that such artificial constraints prevent individuals from realizing their potential and contributing fully to our democracy.

Today I ask you to consider with me another arbitrary line: the barrier of age 18, often defended as a fixed marker of competence and maturity. This prompts me to wonder what democratic principle can justify telling an entire segment of our population that they are old enough to pay taxes, old enough to work and old enough to take on these significant responsibilities, yet not old enough to have a voice in shaping the laws that govern their very existence.

Bill S-222 is an invitation for us to examine inclusion and resilience in our democracy and to consider the evidence now available to help us answer if the time has finally come in Canada — as it has in democracies such as Austria, Scotland, Wales and soon in England and Ireland — to bring down this barrier and enfranchise our youngest citizens by expanding voting rights to include 16- and 17-year-olds. Please allow me to tell you why I believe the answer is a resounding “yes.”

My experience working to advance equality has shown me that exclusion is never neutral. When barriers are erected, whether they deny a woman economic self-sufficiency or deny a young person a vote, a powerful, destructive message is broadcast: You do not belong; your input is not valued.

The current voting age is a vestige of a time when the age of majority was tied to military service and property ownership. This is not the reality of modern Canada.

When we look at the historical barriers faced by women, we see that they were upheld by arguments claiming incapacity or immaturity. We dismissed those arguments because we realized that democracy demands inclusion. We are stronger, our laws and policies are better, and our governance is more legitimate when more citizens’ voices are heard. Extending the vote to 16- and 17-year-olds is a necessary and logical continuation of our nation’s journey toward equality as set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms entrenched in our Constitution.

This is not about granting a privilege; it is about recognizing a right that is already earned through participation in civic life. They pay income taxes, they contribute to the economy, and they are directly impacted by government decisions on everything from student loan debt and climate policy to their access to health and social services.

Arguments against Bill S-222 often revolve around the perceived lack of maturity or political awareness of 16- and 17‑year-olds. But I ask you this, my colleagues: What is the principle here? Are we truly serving democracy when we define civic competence by a birthday rather than by capacity?

Look at the world today. This is a generation that is politically savvy, hyperaware and deeply engaged. These young people are not passive observers; they are the architects of global movements. They lead the charge on climate justice. They organize online and offline against racial inequality and systemic discrimination. And they navigate complex digital-information environments with an acuity that, frankly, surpasses many older generations.

Furthermore, we must consider the educational component. Research — particularly from jurisdictions where voting rights have been extended — shows that enfranchising high-school-aged students has a lasting positive impact on voter turnout. When the voting age aligns with civic education in the classroom, young people are more likely to vote, and they establish a habit of democratic participation that lasts a lifetime.

When we say, “You are not ready to vote,” we remove the responsibility and the incentive to learn and participate. When we say, “Your vote matters,” we empower them to become better citizens.

Honourable colleagues, as a nation that proudly adheres to the Westminster parliamentary system, let us look at our peers in the Commonwealth. The argument that Canada must maintain the status quo is increasingly difficult to defend when key members of our own parliamentary family are moving forward.

Just this year, the United Kingdom, the historical home of our parliamentary tradition, has committed to lowering the voting age. This is not a radical, outlier position; it is the direction of modern, mature democracies.

Beyond England, countries and regions within the Commonwealth, such as Scotland and Wales, have already lowered the voting age to 16 for their devolved elections. Malta, a full Commonwealth member, has extended the franchise to 16 for all elections. So did Austria, Germany, Argentina and Brazil — the list of democratic nations recognizing the maturity and voting capacity of this age group is growing.

Canada has always prided itself on being a leader in democratic rights. When it comes to the franchise of our youth, we are now in danger of straggling behind. Allow me to share some observations about Vote16 that have convinced me that Bill S-222 is our chance to inquire, to question, to learn and to grow our knowledge about democratic participation.

Velma Morgan is no stranger to this chamber; she is the Chair of Operation Black Vote Canada, dedicated to extending the pipeline for Black political leadership in Canada, including for youth and marginalized communities. Velma has been clear that youth from historically under-represented groups, including Black youth, are part of the pool of potential new electors because early voting rights can help build healthy political habits and elevate marginalized voices.

As Velma has often said:

You can’t be what you don’t see. . . . We can’t continue to have the same type of people, the same type of lived experiences making public policy for other people . . . .

Operation Black Vote Canada joins many other organizations in supporting this bill. These include UNICEF Canada, the Samara Centre for Democracy, Laidlaw Foundation and one that is closest to my heart, the Canadian Women’s Foundation, where I was the president and CEO. The Canadian Women’s Foundation shares this message about the bill on its website:

Count girls and gender-diverse young people in so that when they turn 16, they have more of a voice on the pressing issues that impact their lives: climate change, poverty, discrimination, and more.

As I conclude, honourable senators, Bill S-222 represents progress. It represents our continued commitment to breaking down arbitrary barriers to participation. It represents a trust in the energy, the intelligence and the passion of the next generation of Canadian leaders.

We have an opportunity today to take a crucial step toward building a more robust, more representative and more legitimate democracy. Let us recognize the maturity of these young Canadians. Let us explore the choices made by our Commonwealth peers.

Colleagues, I urge you to support the passage of Bill S-222 and to allow it to proceed to committee for further study.

Thank you, meegwetch.

I’d be happy to.

I couldn’t list them for you, but this is one of the things we could explore as we get this bill to committee to ensure that we can understand where it already exists and be able to have some sort of measurement of how that’s working in terms of participation of 16- and 17-year-olds.

But what’s also really important to note is that there are mock scenarios during elections for young people who participate. Rock the Vote or other such initiatives have been very active during elections, provincially and federally, and in some cases municipally as well, so young people have been very engaged in those scenarios.

Senator, will you take a question? Thank you.

You know I’m probably on the bandwagon now, from my background. I have a fundamental belief that nothing for them without them, and that includes young people. I agree with you, Senator Senior, that young people themselves are already leading. They are involved in every single community in this country. They are in their schools. They are volunteers. They are driving. They are building solutions. They are serving their country as cadets or they are actively in service for their country, and some of this is even landscape-changing.

Statistics Canada shows the population of young people is about 8.5 million in Canada, so dropping the age to 16 is fundamentally important. Some are already voting.

In your speech, you noted that when barriers are reinforced and/or erected, this message is clear to young people — and I agree — “You do not belong. Your input is not valid.” Yet our very future is on them. They are our future.

Senator, rather than what we see now as platitudes and good education, how do you see empowering young people from the age of 16 coast to coast to coast, which is important, with the right to vote and to have a meaningful impact on our future? Could you explain?

That is quite a question. Thank you.

In fact, I began my career working with young people and communities, particularly in the Greater Toronto Area. I also had the opportunity when I was on campaign trails to work with young people. They were the most engaged, the most excited and the most inspiring young people to work with.

Keeping this barrier in place will serve to lose young people who are already at a stage in their lives where if you capture their attention now, it will be maintained for a lifetime.

Within the sphere of young people I’m engaged with, encouraging them to vote is something that I do personally every year. It’s something that they know Auntie P is going to come with: I’m going to ask, “Have you voted?” I’m not going to tell them whom to vote for, but I will ask if they have voted and exercised that right. I no longer have to do that with all of them. Once the practice is there, they get involved. Also, if they are not sure, we will engage in a conversation. I think that’s part of what we’re missing, because they are curious and we need to be able to address —

I’m sorry, Senator Senior, your time has expired. Are you asking for more time to answer that question?

Yes.

Honourable senators, do you agree to more time for that question?

It is agreed. Senator Senior, please conclude.

Thank you, colleagues.

To wrap up my answer, I would love to have the kind of society that embraces the idea of young people being fully engaged in our democracy, asking tough questions about the tough issues ahead of us — such as climate change — and being able to influence public policy regarding the future that they will be living in.

(On motion of Senator Pate, debate adjourned.)