Senator McPhedran: Senator Gold, in addition to that inquiry, could you please ask specifically about the Rohingya in the largest refugee camps in the world, mostly in Bangladesh? And could you ask for an update to this chamber on what Canada is doing to provide services to the Rohingya women and children who continue to be at risk of being trafficked and having their education denied for the most part?

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Honourable senators, my question is to the Government Representative in the Senate, Senator Gold.

February 1 marked one year to the day that the Burmese military overthrew the elected government of Myanmar, or Burma, and began a brutal attack on political leaders, activists and ordinary citizens. At least 1,500 people have been killed by the military in the past year.

Wai Wai Nu, a leading young human rights defender whom I work with, has set out a long list of inaction by democracies. I repeat to you her question, Senator Gold: Will Canada support a resolution on Myanmar to the UN Security Council that includes key demands such as a global arms embargo, support for cross‑border humanitarian aid and the referral of Myanmar to the International Criminal Court?

Hon. Marilou McPhedran moved second reading of Bill S-201, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Regulation Adapting the Canada Elections Act for the Purposes of a Referendum (voting age).

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to second reading of Bill S-201. This bill seeks to lower the federal voting age from 18 to 16.

I can think of no better bill to introduce than this wonderful bill, which seeks to include young Canadians in our democracy and is the product of several years of cooperation between my team and youth advisors, the Canadian Council of Young Feminists, and many other youth organizations across the country and around the world.

[English]

Today, I am pleased to once again begin the second reading of a bill — this time named Bill S-201 — that would amend the Canada Elections Act to lower the voting age in federal elections from 18 to 16. This bill would also make several minor amendments to the same act to harmonize the logistics of voting to reflect the age of 16 and the registration of potential voters for the ages of 14 and 15.

This marks the third time I rise to introduce this bill. And, while I certainly hope we can progress further this time, I tell you with all sincerity that I am deeply worried about our democracy and that, after 50-plus years of the right to vote beginning at 18, I am convinced that this relatively simple bill will help to revitalize our democracy, so this legislation remains a top priority for me.

I am deeply grateful to the many Senate colleagues who believed in the merit of studying this bill, then entitled Bill S-209, and voted to send it to committee in the last days of the previous Parliament, making it the first such bill to progress that far in our Parliament. Whether senators agreed or not with enfranchising 16- and 17-year-old Canadians, it was heartening that most in this chamber recognized the importance of allowing a committee to study, scrutinize and weigh the merits of increasing inclusion of younger Canadians in our electoral system.

To me, it was a clear signal of two things: first, that we recognize and respect the maturity, engagement and importance of young people and that their increased involvement in the electoral process deserves our sincere study and attention, not knee-jerk, dismissive rejection; and second, that we honour our mandated duty to give thoughtful and fair consideration to issues of national significance.

I acknowledge that there are passionate views on both sides of this issue, but, as senators, we owe our sober first, second and, in fact, our every thought and reflection to the legislative proposals that come before us. After listening to colleagues speaking on this bill, I would ask that you vote to support moving this debate forward.

I would also ask, out of respect for the fact that each senator in this place is an intelligent and dedicated Canadian, that the votes on this bill be left to the independent thought of each senator in choosing how they will vote.

Honourable colleagues, this is not really a complicated bill, but it has the potential for tremendous impact as a catalyst and force multiplier in the revitalization of our democracy. The rationale is simple and straightforward: We should lower the voting age to 16 because Canada’s young people are capable, informed and engaged enough to vote. Lowering the voting age will increase voter turnout by providing young people the opportunity to vote for the first time in an environment supported for the most part by their schools and their families.

Additionally, research confirms that those who vote at an earlier age for the first time are more likely to be lifelong voters. 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 in several countries confirms this — research from countries like Austria, that extended voting rights to 16- and 17-year-olds in 2007.

Furthermore, let’s do away once and for all with the hollow platitude that young people are “the leaders of tomorrow” when the truth we all know is that we share leadership with them today, because they are genuine stakeholders in the institutions that govern our country. This is a substantive opportunity for us to extend their rights and extend our arms to welcome them to participate fully in shaping our common future.

When this bill was debated in the previous session, some in this chamber argued that the voting age of 18 years was a de facto, immutable constant. However, we know this is not true. The accepted threshold age for voting is a social and legal construct. The voting age was changed 50 years ago by statute, not requiring a constitutional amendment. Moreover, the current consensus of 18 years is only one step in an evolution that has been more than a century in the making, shifting downward over time in various Western countries from 21 to 18 and now, in some, to 16.

At Confederation, the voting age was 21. However, at that time, only White men who owned property could vote. Women, Indigenous peoples, Black and other people of colour and members of certain religions were prevented from participating in the democratic process. In 1917, with the First World War raging, the right to vote was extended to all Canadian military members, including, with some limitations, women and Indigenous people recognized as Indians under the Indian Act. After certain women in Manitoba were the first in Canada to gain the vote — a hard-won battle — the vote was extended to many more women over the age of 21 in 1918, but still not to Indigenous women.

By 1960, the Canada Elections Act extended the vote in federal elections to people recognized as Indians under the Indian Act. And amidst great national debate about how people so young could not possibly exercise such responsibility, the Canada Elections Act was amended to lower the age of voting from 21 to 18 in 1970, more than half a century ago.

We are on the cusp of another period of change. This bill is a response to ever-growing calls for widening the franchise in Canada. This movement is led by youth, but they are not alone. Frankly, they are a lot more impressive, engaged and responsible than many of us probably were at their age. They are watching. They are waiting to be heard by parliamentarians. Regardless of political affiliation, respectful listening to younger members of our society is what a senator can and should do.

The 1991 Lortie commission is instructive in this regard. Although recommending no alteration to the voting age at that time, it concluded emphatically, at page 57, that it was a decision subject to change:

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 52 years since the voting age was lowered to 18 years of age, and 32 years since the Lortie commission called for a parliamentary review of that decision.

To highlight how this issue continues to evolve in response to demand, I remind senators that there are presently two bills on lowering the voting age before our Parliament, and that, in fact, over most of the past 20-plus years, there has always been such a bill in play. Internationally, more than 20 countries have implemented a full or limited form of #Vote16 and have observed positive outcomes such as increased civic engagement among youth and people connected to these youth.

#Vote16 campaigns have steadily gained momentum at the provincial and municipal level, notably in British Columbia and Prince Edward Island. And most recently, in December 2021, a group of young Canadians filed an application at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to challenge the voting age in Canada, arguing that the Canada Elections Act, in preventing citizens under the age of 18 from voting in federal elections, is in violation of sections 3 and 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is therefore unconstitutional. It will be some time before these arguments will be determined by a court.

The arguments against lowering the legal voting age to 16 today echo the debates on lowering the voting age to 18 in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. Indeed, they are remarkably similar to the arguments were made against women’s right to vote.

Today’s common criticisms of youth echo those historical debates. Young people are collectively charged with being too uninformed, too unengaged and too immature. Today there is ample evidence to counter all of these stereotypical claims. Indeed, the 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 with their 18‑year-old peers and older adults.

Let’s look at some of the concerns and stereotypical tropes raised thus far in the discussion of lowering the voting age to 16.

Maturity: Critics argue that 16-year-olds are not mature enough to vote. But let’s look more closely at the concept of maturity, which is often equated to age.

In a research paper I received from Manitoba high school students Sarah Rohleder and her sister Meaghan, aged 15 and 16 respectively, they made the succinct observation that “Age doesn’t make everyone wiser.”

When we look outside the voting context, Canadian lawmakers have already decided that 16- and 17-year-olds are mature enough to engage in many activities that require maturity and responsible decision making.

Canadian society sees 16-year-olds as mature enough to enroll in the Armed Forces under the reserves. We entrust them to shoulder one of the greatest responsibilities one can have — serving your country and accepting unlimited liability imbued with the ultimate sacrifice for one’s country.

We believe 16-year-olds are mature enough to drive a car, which is fundamentally a killing machine, on the same roads as everyone else. We trust them to get behind the wheel and engage in an activity that is statistically one of the most dangerous acts in everyday life.

We believe that 16-year-olds are mature enough to provide informed consent to having sex and enter into a contract of marriage with the consent of their parents. We defer to the maturity of young people to know their bodies and to have the capacity to speak autonomously for what they do and do not want in the pursuit of their health.

We believe that at age 16 you are old enough to earn an income and be taxed on that income. Governments take money from employed 16-year-old Canadians, create policy and legislation that affects them but without them. Youth as young as 12 years can be charged with criminal offences under the Criminal Code of Canada. At 14 years, they can be tried as adults and sentenced to incarceration. We hold youth accountable and responsible for their actions before the law, and mature enough to bear the consequences and penalties for their actions, yet incapable of casting a ballot — mature criminals but immature voters.

In summary, 16- and 17-year-olds are already considered mature enough to navigate the responsibilities of joining the military, providing sexual consent, driving a car, paying taxes, adult prosecution, getting married and becoming parents. Yet they do not have access to the most fundamental, democratic form of engagement: the right to vote. This contradictory and inconsistent view of youth voting maturity is at odds with the heavy responsibilities that our society has already placed on their shoulders.

Why are we keeping young people away from the heart of our democracy within which the right to vote resides? Instead, we need to harness them as partners in the revitalization of our democracy. This is an essential opportunity to demonstrate to young Canadians the respect they deserve because they have earned it. They are our partners in the stewardship of our country and the institutions that govern us.

Look around you. Although 30 years of age is the threshold to be considered for appointment to the Senate, no one within a decade of that age is a senator. For the first time in our history, Canada has become an old country, by which I mean that older generations outnumber the young. Statistics Canada indicates that this imbalance in the population will only grow and that in less than 10 years seniors could represent almost a quarter of the population.

Let’s think about the fact that the federal debt surpasses $1.2 trillion. It is not our generation that will bear the full, long-term impact of the long recovery ahead.

Informed citizens: Some critics argue that a 16-year-old is not informed enough to cast a ballot. The 16- and 17-year-olds that I know, the 14-, 15-, 16- and 17-year-olds who sent me research papers arguing in favour of my bill, delivered papers that I happily would have given a high grade measured by my standards as a university professor. Based on the evidence, 16- and 17-year-olds are able to make an informed decision based on their values and vision of inclusivity and progress.

Colleagues, my dad first ran as a Conservative at the invitation of the late senator Dufferin Roblin, who was then premier of Manitoba. I knocked on dozens of doors, beginning at the age of 12, for several candidates over the years running for a number of political parties. For those among us who have this experience, we know there is many a voter much older than 16 who is neither mature nor well informed, but we would fight for them to retain their right to vote.

A voter may be unsure about their position on some issues, but that does not prevent them from being informed and effectively casting their ballot. An informed voter understands their own values and can translate those values into their vision for Canada by casting their vote.

You don’t need to take my word for it. Take the evidence of the past decade from researchers who have established that 16- and 17-year-olds are equal to, in some cases superior to, 18‑year‑olds in the ability to vote responsibility.

I’m going to quote from the paper authored by Sarah and Meaghan Rohleder, both too young to vote, where they say that, in fact, federal elections in Austria, Malta and Guernsey — all countries that have already lowered the voting age to 16 — have seen high participation, at about 70%. Austria even tops the Eurobarometer for voter turnout for 15- to 30-year-olds with 79%, while the average voter turnout in Europe is 64%.

A Denmark study found that 18-year-olds are more likely to take their first vote than 19-year-olds. The more months that go by in those years saw a decline in first voter turnout. Lowering the voting age will allow people to vote before they leave high school and their home and establish lifelong voting habits.

Evidence from Austria, which lowered the voting age over 15 years ago, confirms that there is a higher first-time voter turnout that continues over time. It shows that they are ready to contribute sound decision making and quality participation in democracy. The feeling of voting, of stating your opinion, is a strong one. It is a simple act, but one that matters immensely.

In another research paper sent to me by three other Manitoba high school students several studies were cited, including a study published by the London School of Economics that a voter’s first two election cycles are key in determining their future voting habits. It increases twofold for every election in which they vote.

In the words of high school students Avinash, Rooj and Shiven, “That is the recipe for a lifelong voter.”

These student authors also noted that one kind of cognition is called cold cognition, and that is usually what we think about: attention, memory and everyday types of things. It’s really non‑emotional cognition. Then there is hot cognition, which is emotional and social cognition.

For decisions such as voting, our brains use cold cognition. While hot cognition continues developing until the mid-twenties, psychological research demonstrates that cold cognition is fully mature and developed by the age of 16. This bears restating. Viewed clinically via the lens of cognitive neuroscience, 16‑year‑olds are completely intellectually capable of making political decisions with the same mental efficacy as adults.

Colleagues, these are rational arguments and evidence that surpass the anecdotal dismissals of young voters that comprise the bulk of arguments we have been hearing from talk show pundits and other opponents.

A study from the American Academy of Political & Social Science verified the adequate level of political knowledge held by teenagers. Finding that on measures of civic knowledge, political skills, political efficacy and tolerance, 16-year-olds, on average, are obtaining scores similar to those considered adults.

Engaging youth and lowering the voting age are mutually reinforcing actions. In the past 20 years, significant studies attest to the corollary effect of education and formation on voting habits and electoral confidence. Lowering the voting age from 21 to 18, or 18 to 16, triggers a parallel increase in civic education and support for those potential new electors, something that Elections Canada has been doing for more than 100 years.

I would point out that every single research report on lowering the federal voting age, at any age, has been accompanied by the recommendation to increase education, political awareness and acuity, dialogue and therefore capacity.

Most young people are in high school at the age of 16, which provides a supportive framework to absorb the knowledge necessary to make an informed vote. At 16 and 17, Canadians are in a uniquely advantageous position to learn about the political process, the history of our democracy and the importance of voting. I would agree with those who argue that this should, in fact, begin much earlier. They are in an environment where they spend time exploring the complicated issues that face all of us today.

In the classroom, young people have a structured opportunity to discuss the different federal and provincial parties and their positions concerning environmental, economic and social issues of national and global importance. Elections would provide students an opportunity to practise forming and acting on their own opinion, and the school setting provides them the informational resources to make an informed decision when voting.

Effective representation: honourable senators, voting is a simple but powerful act. It is an act that recognizes the credibility of the person’s voice in making a decision about their community and their nation. It allows citizens to participate in the decision-making process and hold accountable those in power. In fact, our young citizens bear the burden of the decisions we are making now. To some extent, it is their future earnings that we are spending now. Giving young people the right to vote will improve our political representation and help leaders make decisions that positively affect young individuals long after they are young.

Young people are not only affected by government policy on education, climate change and other issues. When a young person moves out of their home, they are impacted by housing policy. When a young person commutes, they are affected by transit and infrastructure planning. When a young person is concerned about how they are going to take care of their elders, they are affected by seniors policy. When young people enter the workforce, they are impacted by tax and economic policy. When young people need to buy groceries for themselves or their family, food prices affect them. When looking for medical attention, young people are affected by the funding levels of our health care systems. Many more young people wish to pursue post-secondary education than those who can. They are affected by education funding.

Young people face important and serious issues that intersect with the role of government. As of 2018, people under 18 are more than twice as likely to live in poverty as are seniors. Historically, youth unemployment has been higher than that of the general population. This pandemic has revealed the vulnerability and disproportionate burden young people are being forced to carry. During the first waves of the pandemic, youth unemployment ballooned to 29.4%. January 2022 statistics reveal youth unemployment is at 13.6%: more than double the national rate now.

With the rising impact and costs associated with climate change, young people will pay the most for our inaction on transitioning to a low-carbon economy and the development of infrastructure resilience. The consequences of government action affect this cohort of young citizens who are mature enough to form an informed opinion but are prevented from being able to exercise their democratic right to vote.

Strengthening our democracy: Lowering the voting age to 16 will strengthen our democracy by increasing the number of habitual voters. Studies have shown that voters who vote in their first election are more likely to continue voting in their lifetime. Failure to engage youth in the democratic process can have negative consequences in the long term for the health of our democracy. Voter turnout in federal elections has not once been over 70% within the past 70 years.

When looking at the demographic breakdown of voter turnout, it is easy to cast a disapproving eye on the 18- to 24-year-olds who are often listed as those least likely to vote. According to Elections Canada, Canadians between those ages have shown the least amount of interest in voting, and their 2019 turnout was 57.1%.

The responsibility for engaging young people is shared. There is a degree of responsibility on youth to get involved. After speaking from experience, young people are ready and willing to engage in meaningful conversations about serious issues. However, there is a reciprocal responsibility on us as a society to create opportunities for young people to participate in the democratic system and develop interest in their communities. We should consider too that part of the reason behind youth political disengagement is due to electoral exclusion to begin with. As the youth authors of the National Youth Dialogue on Lowering the Voting Age have concisely stated:

It is incredibly frustrating to be affected acutely by government policies without any way of tangibly influencing policymaking decisions. . . . When you are treated as though your voice does not matter, that acts as an incredible barrier to political expression.

— and participation.

A study of the relationship between voting age and voter turnout in Denmark suggests that individuals are more likely to vote at 16 while their parents’ influence is still stronger than that of their peers. Comparatively, individuals are less likely to vote at 18 when their peers’ influence begins to outweigh that of their parents.

Another study found that the benefit of parenting a newly enfranchised voter is that the parent is more likely to vote in the same election, further increasing voter turnout. Most importantly, the older you become before you cast your first ballot decreases the likelihood you will ever vote for the first time. In a study of Austrian elections, 16- and 17-year-old voter turnout was almost 10% greater than those who were 18 to 20.

Colleagues, the take away is clear. Lowering the voting age will allow young Canadians to engage with the democratic process earlier, is habit forming and increases overall voter turnout in the long term. There is clear evidence of this in Austria, Scotland and Denmark — all countries where lowered voting ages resulted in increased voter turnout.

In 2007, when Austria lowered its voting age to 16, researchers found a first time voting boost in the 16- and 17-year-olds that was greater than those between the ages of 18 and 20. They also found that the turnout in the 16- and 17-year-olds was not substantially lower than the average turnout rate of the entire voting population. Academics in Austria also found that those under 18 were able and willing to participate in politics. Their values were as effectively translated into political decisions as those who were older. The study also found no evidence that a lack of voter turnout was driven by a lack of interest or a lack of ability to participate.

Young people are interested. Young people are willing to participate. Let us take a step to strengthen our democracy by increasing the public’s participation in the electoral process. Let’s bring more people to the table who can help make important decisions about policy and spending that affect them. Let’s trust young people and help them develop into the leaders who will soon be at the forefront of the vast dynamic range of issues facing our society, if they are not already in the forefront now.

Last year, I collaborated with the Alberta-based Centre for Global Education and the Ontario-based Taking IT Global, which undertook an intensive cross-Canada consultation of high-skill students from coast to coast to coast on the topic of lowering the voting age. The final report was released in 2021 and presented to parliamentarians in a series of virtual seminars. Many of you attended, and I thank you for that. Among the report’s findings:

Young people want to vote. We want to be able to share our political beliefs in a way that makes a difference. We are living in this country, have voices, and want to make a change as much or even more than older individuals. The barriers we are facing today can be overcome to allow for more educated and involved youth. We are asking that you consider these barriers and help us to make the changes we feel strongly for. We are the next generation, and allowing us to vote will help to guide the changes occurring in the world towards our future.

To those who are concerned that an influx of young voters will disrupt the current political landscape, let’s run the numbers. Lowering the voting age would be giving around 800,000 people the ability to vote. Canada’s total eligible electorate was just over 27 million people in 2019. Adding the 800,000 16- and 17‑year‑olds to the electorate would represent a 2.9% increase to the total number of eligible voters. Honourable senators, this is a fraction of the total electorate and will not upset Canada’s political competition.

To critics who argue that all youth will simply vote for one particular type of party, the research pushes back against this idea by recognizing it for what it really is: a form of gatekeeping and voter suppression, and of preventing an otherwise capable person from exercising their political preference out of fear that it may not align with our own. Maturity and social responsibility should play the defining role in deciding whether to allow someone to vote, not their personal political beliefs. Such a notion is antithetical to the understanding of democracy itself, where the unfettered voices of the people voting are the source of legitimate power.

However, if this ethical reasoning is insufficient to dissuade critics from making false assumptions as to youth voting biases, then I would like to share another fact. In the recent national student vote mock election, which paralleled the federal election of September 2021, organized by CIVIX in partnership with Elections Canada, in which more than 780,000 students cast a ballot, guess which party received a larger percentage of the popular vote than the governing Liberal Party? Senator Plett, this one is for you — it was the Conservatives.

While there have been previous private members’ bills to lower the voting age to 16, they have all originated in the other place. Bill S-201 gives senators a unique opportunity to frame this debate in its initial stages, which at its core concerns the modernization and revitalization of our democracy.

I wish to remind honourable senators of the argument raised previously that presupposed that the Senate is not the proper forum for this type of bill, and that legislation affecting the Canada Elections Act should originate in the other place. I refute the false premise of that assertion, and I spoke to it in my rebuttal at the time. But it was used erroneously as a major objection to the passage of the bill previously, and I really want to restate my argument with three clear points today.

First, the Senate has every right to introduce, debate, advance and study any type of legislation. Indeed, the Constitution Act, 1982 grants as much legislative power to the Senate as to the House of Commons, with the exception that the House of Commons has the exclusive power to originate appropriation and tax bills. Numerous bills seeking to amend the Elections Act in various ways have originated in the Senate in recent years. All of these were debated openly and went on to pass or fail based on their relative merits as part of the recognized legislative process, either in this chamber or in the other place. In like manner, the members of the other place will eventually have the same opportunity to weigh the merits of this present bill as they see fit, should we send it to them. The same applies for the bill that is currently in the other place. We too will have the opportunity to fully examine that bill, should it reach us.

Second, I would posit that the Senate is actually an ideal place to consider the federal voting age in Canada. By its very design, the Senate is meant to engage in the legislative process in a fashion that is removed from the pressures of the electoral cycle and the partisan politics of the day.

As one of our esteemed colleagues, Senator Harder, argued in the National journal of constitutional law, and I quote:

. . . Because senators were appointed for a long tenure, it was originally expected that they would not place the interests and fate of political parties at the heart of its deliberations. Rather, senators would take an independent and dispassionate approach to the task of legislative scrutiny and debate, and apply their thoughtful judgment unimpeded by electoral or partisan pressure.

Freed as we are from the pressures, constraints and imperatives of the election cycle, we senators may be able to apply a level of nuance and dispassionate distance to voting age reform that may not be possible for a body of elected members who must deal with the biases and pressures, both known and unknown, that attend their elected positions.

Third, the Senate serves an invaluable purpose as a body that can lead substantive, in-depth studies and move forward debates and policy considerations that may well inform future government legislation and public policy. We have seen many examples of this in the last three sessions of Parliament, while I have been a senator. The Senate is a complementing not competing actor in the legislative process, providing value to Canadians. Senate public bills significantly influence public policy by simply being proposed and debated.

Engaging youth; youths are often accused of being disengaged, apathetic, absent. Honourable senators, that’s not what I see. That’s not what I hear. Young people are already engaged in their communities. They get involved in their high schools through clubs and student councils. They are involved in sports teams and drama theatres that put on fundraisers for community initiatives. They volunteer for political campaigns, organize rallies and advocate for causes.

I have encountered a lot of opposition from people who don’t think that young people are thoughtful or knowledgeable enough, but give them the space to talk and you will see an astonishing amount of depth and sophistication in what they have to say. It amazes me to see the way our young leaders are enacting new visions from the grassroots. If you take the time to listen to the young people in your regions, you, too, will be persuaded by their convictions and insight.

Lowering the voting age can expose interested young people to organizations or activities that can produce habits of civic engagement. Creating more opportunities for young people to be exposed to how they can contribute their time and effort to develop their communities is something worth fighting for.

I also want to add here that we need to understand that, in many ways, volunteerism is a luxury that many young people cannot afford. We have a very significant poverty level in this country under which many young people must live.

When I began working with my youth advisors on the idea of lowering the federal voting age, they made it clear to me that a national campaign, galvanized by youth leaders, needed to be created. But they also pointed out to me that there were many young people who would want to be able to participate but who would not be able to participate.

This holds true in terms of community engagement and engagement in other ways in our democracy. Relatively speaking, the right to vote does not take that much time. This is a way, with an equal distribution of the right, for a wide range of young people to be engaged in their communities and in our democracy.

From across Canada, my youth advisors have been diligently researching, consulting and proposing outreach strategies to ensure Canadian youth are involved at all stages of the process of this bill. The #Vote16 steering committee, composed of my youth advisors, has been invaluable for providing thorough feedback and youth perspectives at every stage of this process.

This has been a long time coming from my first year as a senator in 2017, with numerous youth circles across Manitoba and, eventually, other parts of the country. I’m committed to consulting young leaders as this bill makes its way through Parliament and to invite youth, youth-led movements and youth‑focused organizations to reach out.

[Translation]

Bill S-201 will improve Canada’s democratic representation by giving a political voice to people who are affected by government policy, but who have no significant means to influence it. Lowering the voting age will revitalize Canadian democracy by creating an environment where more young Canadians will vote for the first time and will thus be more likely to continue to vote for the rest of their lives, which will increase voter turnout in the long term. This will strengthen youth engagement. If we want young people to be full members of our society, we must make room for them at the table.

[English]