Speech on Bill S-209: The Merits of Lowering the Voting Age to 16
On December 3, 2020 Senator Omidvar gave a speech in support of Bill S-209, which aims to lower the federal voting age from 18 to 16.
Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to you on Bill S-209, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act for the purposes of lowering the voting age from 18 to 16.
I want to commend Senator McPhedran for her work on ensuring that the voices of young Canadians will have a say in our democracy. I welcome her efforts in this direction.
I want to start with history because the history of who gets to vote in Canada has never been set in stone. It has always evolved and will likely continue to do so. In 1885, as we have heard a number of times, only male property-owning British subjects aged 21 and older were eligible to vote. Today, all Canadian citizens aged 18 or older, regardless of gender, income, property ownership or ethnic origin, have the right to vote.
However, every time voter eligibility has evolved, objections have been raised. Senator Miville-Dechêne pointed out some of the objections that were raised in my research. I came across what happened in 1918 when women were enfranchised. Senator Hewitt Bostock argued that:
. . . women will be put in the position of receiving something that they do not appreciate, and consequently very probably they will not exercise their right to vote.
I’m sure many women cringe when they read that point of view.
Similarly, I have heard many arguments against lowering the voting age to 16, so instead of telling you the virtues associated with the idea, let me try to deal with the objections.
The first objection that people put forward is that young people are just too young to deal with complex matters such as voting. Plus, they are so young that we cannot reasonably expect them to make informed choices. In addition, their brains are not sufficiently developed at 16 to enable them to make logical choices. What would be the point, in any case, since young people would only vote the way their parents tell them to? In other words, here is the basket of objections: They are too young. They are too immature. They are too impressionable. They are too inexperienced to be granted that most valuable right of citizens — the ability to cast your vote.
Instead of just giving you my opinion, let me grasp for evidence from jurisdictions that have lowered the voting age. In 2007, Austria enfranchised those aged 16 and older. There is a 13-year body of evidence to draw from. The data tells us that the turnout among 16 and 17-year-old Austrian voters have been substantially higher than the turnout among 18 to 20-year-old voters and not substantially lower than the overall turnout rate. Evidently, young people will vote if they are given the opportunity.
Let’s deal with the objection related to immaturity: Young people cannot be entrusted with the vote because they will make uninformed choices. If given the vote, they may cast their vote for the sake of voting, without understanding the implications of the choices they are making. They don’t have enough political knowledge, they are not able to tune into the political discourse of the day, et cetera.
Colleagues, as an aside, if this holds true for young people, I would submit it holds true for many adults as well.
But, once again, I look to countries that have enfranchised youth to determine if this argument holds water. A study conducted in Austria before the 2009 European Parliament election showed that young people voted based on their political preferences just as much as older voters did. They were not ignorant of the context; quite the opposite. They had a distinct political preference, which they exercised through their vote.
Then there is the argument that adolescent brains cannot manage the logical processes required for voting. However, according to neuroscientists, in scenarios where tasks are mainly cognitive, adolescents show competence levels similar to those of adults. This means that when the level of stress is low and there is time to evaluate different choices, young people are indeed able to make thoughtful decisions. Because voting is an activity for which you don’t just vote on the go — you have time to think about it — they are able to make reasonable decisions, just as much as adult voters.
Finally, to the point of parental influence, what is the point of allowing young people to vote, people ask, since they will only vote the way their parents tell them to. I don’t know about your kids, colleagues, but in my family, the opposite is almost always true. Kids have perspectives, they have priorities, they have opinions and they don’t hesitate to tell adults, especially parents, what is wrong with our world.
As Senator Miville-Dechêne pointed out, prior to the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, over 40% of those under 18 years of age indicated a different voting intention to that of their parents. Clearly, young people have minds of their own.
Plus, the influence does not just go one way; it goes both ways. Young people can and do affect their parents’ civic engagement and attitudes as well. My children have certainly influenced me about global warming and climate change.
There are many reasons to look seriously at this proposal. It will have a positive impact on a lateral participation in the long run, because people under 18 are likely to still be in school and live with their families — two factors that have been shown to encourage turnout. I believe that permitting young people to vote will allow them to learn to vote in a more sheltered environment. In the long term, this higher level of participation at a young age may become a good, lifelong habit they can exercise.
But the most important reason for enfranchising young people is that the future is theirs. We make decisions here in this chamber that have significant impacts on their lives: regarding cannabis, the labelling of food, assisted dying, what they buy, whether products have slave labour in their supply chains, the impacts of the pandemic on their lives and climate change.
A common complaint I hear from young people is that the older political elites control their future. Giving them the right to vote at this age will ensure that we hear their views and take them seriously.
I don’t want to make the argument for lowering the voting age without linking it to civic education; you can’t do one without the other. For example, in Austria, the lowering of the voting age was accompanied by awareness-raising campaigns and enhancing the status of civic and citizenship education in schools. In terms of citizenship education, all provinces and territories include the subject area in their curriculums. There are programs, of course, as Senator Martin has pointed out, like youth vote, et cetera, that go into schools and raise awareness. But I would like to see more emphasis given in mandatory school curriculums in Canada.
Colleagues, I will close my short speech with a final pitch. Young people will inherit the results of the decisions we make. It’s time to give them a chance to shape their future and ours at the polls. This is an important issue. I would urge the Senate to send this bill to committee for further scrutiny. Thank you very much.
The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Senator Martin, do you have a question?
Senator Martin: I have a question for Senator Omidvar.
The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Senator Omidvar, would you answer a question?
Senator Omidvar: Absolutely.
Senator Martin: Thank you.
I agree that civic education will be very important for students. Do you also think that financial literacy and teaching students basic economic principles and understanding the economic impact of decisions — those things are also important — should also be a focus along with some of these other programs?
Senator Omidvar: Senator Martin, it is clear that you and I were both teachers in our past. We both value education that is in keeping with the times. I can’t disagree with your proposal that financial literacy is core to helping young people mature. There should be an aspect of citizenship education that lays out the basics of taxation, et cetera, so kids understand this important feature.
But I think the real challenge is in persuading provincial school systems to expand the time allocated to civic and citizenship education. It’s highly variable across the country, and I believe this is a very important matter for scrutiny in committee.