As a child-rights expert and youth advocate, I never thought I would find myself in adult criminal court testifying in a homicide trial about my understanding of 100+ pieces of youth-serving legislation from across all 13 Canadian jurisdictions.
And yet I did. Because as a country, we do not have a consistent or agreed upon consensus for how we define ‘youth’ by age. Across our education, child protection, justice, immigration, health, and Jordan’s Principal regulations, our legislated service sectors for youth across the provinces and territories cannot agree on what age-range someone in Canada is considered a ‘youth’.
We cannot be too hard on ourselves. The WHO, the UN General Assembly, and UN Convention on the Rights of the Child all have varying age range definitions of youth based on different data collection, protection and policy priorities.
So why does a definition of youth matter?
A democracy that fails to define its citizenry and create belonging is in jeopardy. Youth, who by circumstance of being in constant flux and transition, and are not considered to have a designated role in community are as a result, disenfranchised from community and democracy.
Our social markers of ‘adulthood’ keep changing: When is your education ‘done’? Do you have to live on your own to be an adult? Do you have to own that home? Marriage ages are shifting upwards over the years.
This undefined ‘no man’s land’ between childhood and adulthood is not new. Decades ago, in the 1960s, our federal justice department wrangled with the age range of what is now the ever-evolving Youth Criminal Justice Act. Even then, our democratic decision-makers found it a challenge to determine when adulthood kicks in, when responsibility and citizenry accountability become full-fledged.
Here we are: A country in a youth mental health crisis never before seen. Youth repeatedly stating they are isolated, want community, want belonging, essentially, want social and civic purpose.
Renegade Politics is about the dangers and shocking stories about how Canada has dropped the ball on listening to youth. We have failed to include them in the decisions made about their own lives: From education policy and school ‘safety’, to immigration impacts on family, justice system decisions about their own very custody, child protection determining where they live, health services which may or may not take their preferences into account.
Youth are experts in their own lives. Democracy needs all citizens to feel solidified and secure in the roles they fulfill in community. Whether that is a local school trusteeship board, or the Prime Minister’s Youth Council. We can only make good policies when we include those that must live by them. We can only create purpose when we define belonging.
We all need to reclaim our systems. And make sure youth are not left behind in ‘no man’s land’.