# Long-term expats don't have right to vote in federal elections, court rules



## dimsum (28 Jul 2015)

> Allowing Canadians who have lived abroad for more than five years to vote in federal elections would be unfair to those who live in Canada, Ontario's top court ruled Monday.
> 
> In a split decision, the Court of Appeal overturned a ruling that had restored the right of more than one million long-term expats to vote.



http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/long-term-expats-don-t-have-right-to-vote-in-federal-elections-court-rules-1.3160110

And Donald Sutherland weighs in on the matter:



> My name is Donald Sutherland. My wife’s name is Francine Racette. We are Canadians. We each hold one passport. A Canadian passport. That’s it. They ask me at the border why I don’t take American citizenship. I could still be Canadian, they say. You could have dual citizenship. But I say no, I’m not dual anything. I’m Canadian. There’s a maple leaf in my underwear somewhere. There used to be a beaver there, too, but I’m 80 now and beavers are known to take off when you’re in your 80s.
> 
> We live in Canada all the time we can. Our family house is here. Professionally, I still have to think twice when I say “out” or “house.” I have to restrain myself from saying “eh?”. In 1978, that’s nearly 40 years ago, the Canadian government made me an Officer of the Order of Canada. The Governor-General gave me the Governor-General’s Award a while back. I am on your Walk of Fame in Toronto. My sense of humour is Canadian. But I can’t vote.



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/im-canadian-and-i-have-a-right-to-vote/article25731634/?click=sf_globefb

Before this becomes a Harper-bash, the law had been in place since 1993, but in 2007 it was amended so that visits back didn't "reset the clock".  On one hand, Canadian expats who have lived over 5 years abroad generally won't pay as much attention to Canadian politics/laws as those living in Canada.  On the other hand, Section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees any Canadian citizen the right to vote.  

Discuss.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (28 Jul 2015)

It seems to me that Donald Sutherland still lives in Canada, if he is to be believed. He states that the family house is here.

The two complainants however, do not live in canada anymore. They themselves have stated that they pursued working opportunities abroad (in the US in this case). 

This is fine, but to me the real question for expat who would wish to vote in Canada is : Where do they qualify to vote anyway? 

Expat voting for countries where you have proportional voting (like Italy, for instance) is easy enough: you just count the votes. But for countries like Canada, you have electoral ridings and you are required to have your primary residence in the riding where you vote. If you are an expat, you have no riding. Then why should you be free to pick any riding you want to vote in? That would be giving you a right that other Canadians don't enjoy.

My personal view here: Don't bother with expat/non expats time disqualification. If a canadian working abroad kept his primary residence in a Canadian riding, he should be allowed to vote in that riding. If he doesn't have a residence there, no voting right (and I would use the fact that he/she has filed a Canadian tax return based on that residence as a proof of qualification).


----------



## Rocky Mountains (28 Jul 2015)

If Sutherland has a house here, he is a Canadian resident, regardless of primary residence.  Being a Canadian resident, he had better have been paying Canadian income tax all along or he is going to talk himself into a lot of hurt.


----------



## Robert0288 (28 Jul 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> If Sutherland has a house here, he is a Canadian resident, regardless of primary residence.  Being a Canadian resident, he had better have been paying Canadian income tax all along or he is going to talk himself into a lot of hurt.



If he has not resided in Canada in 5 years he is not considered a Canadian Resident.  You need to spend at least 6 months + 1 day a year in Canada to be considered a Canadian Resident* for CRA and CBSA. (http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/nnrsdnts/cmmn/rsdncy-eng.html)

For CIC and Elections Canada I'd have assume them to be the same.  

*with lots of small exceptions.


----------



## dimsum (28 Jul 2015)

Robert0288 said:
			
		

> If he has not resided in Canada in 5 years he is not considered a Canadian Resident.  You need to spend at least 6 months + 1 day a year in Canada to be considered a Canadian Resident* for CRA and CBSA. (http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/nnrsdnts/cmmn/rsdncy-eng.html)
> 
> For CIC and Elections Canada I'd have assume them to be the same.
> 
> *with lots of small exceptions.



That site also states that a house in Canada (of which Mr. Sutherland has one) is a significant residential tie.


----------



## Robert0288 (28 Jul 2015)

Residential ties are different than residential status.  And as I said tax purposes for CRA are different than residency for CIC or Elections Canada or other departments.  And in this case we are looking at the residency requirements of Elections Canada, which is the following as per Elections Act:



> 8. (1) The place of ordinary residence of a person is the place that has always been, or that has been adopted as, his or her dwelling place, and to which the person intends to return when away from it.
> 
> One place of residence only
> (2) A person can have only one place of ordinary residence and it cannot be lost until another is gained.
> ...



Also voting requirements


> As set out in the Special Voting Rules of the Canada Elections Act, Elections Canada maintains the International Register of Electors, a database containing the names of Canadian electors living outside Canada. To be included in the International Register of Electors, an elector whose home is abroad must:
> •be qualified to vote (i.e. a Canadian citizen at least 18 years old on election day)
> •have resided in Canada at any time before applying
> •confirm that they intend to return to Canada to reside by providing the date on which they intend to resume residence in Canada, and
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jul 2015)

So, for all those standing up for Mr Sutherland, et al.

Are you also standing up for all the folks from the Middle East, or wherever, that come here, get a passport of convenience and then return home to their businesses(Lebanon in example) until they need medical help or they are being overrun by terrorists and we have to evacuate them all back to Canada? They should get to vote also, right?

I don't see a difference, so feel free to enlighten us


----------



## captloadie (28 Jul 2015)

Our Isreali friends might not take kind to be likened to terrorists (even if their actions my be indistinguishable in some cases).


----------



## cupper (28 Jul 2015)

Speaking from personal experience, I have not voted since moving to the US in 2001. As far as I am concerned, being away I've lost track of the issues and concerns, especially at the provincial and local levels, even though I followed the news fairly closely during that time. National politics I had a bit more interest in, but still did not follow close enough to justify a need to participate in the various elections during that period.

And when you live within the influence of the DC beltway, the never ending election cycle here in the US makes you more jaded about the democratic process overall.

But I do feel that had I participated in the Canadian electoral process from the start, that I should still be permitted to exercise my right to vote. The fact that I did not participate over the years could and should be considered in determining whether I should be permitted to participate. Essentially, use it or lose it.


----------



## Acorn (28 Jul 2015)

The vote is strictly linked to citizenship. Period. The '93 law also allowed federal judges the vote, and I would regard the "visit reset" built into that as intentional, not a "loophole."

The "passports of convenience" in the ME and elsewhere don't vote, even though they could (up 'till now).

The Elections Canada site has an interesting history of the franchise since Confederation. It strikes me as instructive that it has been more-or-less a constant increase in voting rights up to now. Let's not take a step back. 

Consider that in over 1 million expats maybe 6k vote. Those are the ones that want to be Canadian, and remain Canadian (and some have the CF/foreign service exemption) and now we deny that to them? 

cupper's post illustrates the real issue - some move away and disengage. Some do not. That's their choice as much as it's the choice of any citizen residing in Canada to stay at home on Election Day. 

If an expat wants to jump through the absentee ballot hoops (as I am doing at the moment) required, I would consider that person as "emgaged" and quite likely fully intending to return to Canada, regardless of the amount of time out. That should be the only thing required.


----------



## Navy_Pete (28 Jul 2015)

Bit of a tangent here, but can someone please explain to me how the Ontario courts have jurisdiction over something like the Elections Act?

I understand there is overlap, and some things are delegated downwards to the provinces, but would this ruling apply all across Canada or only in Ontario?

I would have thought something like this would have gone to the federal courts.

Personally, if someone is willing and engaged enough to go through the process to vote from abroad, I can't see why it's reasonable to deny them the right to vote as a Canadian citizen.  There are no aptitude or awareness tests for residents, so when voter turnout is so pathetic, why not allow any Canadian living abroad that holds a valid passport vote?

I think it will become more common in the future for citizenship and job location to become less related with all the changes to the global economy, and there will be more people living abroad maintaining ties to Canada.  This is only a small fraction of people eligible that are really affected, but I'm leary of any efforts to limit the voting of anyone, particularly when the govt in power has been convicted of electoral fraud.


----------



## GeorgeD (28 Jul 2015)

If I have spend the last 5,10,15 or 20 years living outside of Canada what right do I have to make decisions that affect people in Canada directly while they have little to no effect on me?  What happens if those million + people who live outside Canada started voting en mass? What if our elections were decided by people who have no stake in those elections?


----------



## Navy_Pete (28 Jul 2015)

What if most eligible Canadians voted?  What if a majority government was elected with the majority of votes?

All good questions and all irrelevant.  I think you need a better reason then 'what if...' to justify preventing people from voting.


----------



## runormal (28 Jul 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> So, for all those standing up for Mr Sutherland, et al.
> 
> Are you also standing up for all the folks from the Middle East, or wherever, that come here, get a passport of convenience and then return home to their businesses(Lebanon in example) until they need medical help or they are being overrun by terrorists and we have to evacuate them all back to Canada? They should get to vote also, right?
> 
> I don't see a difference, so feel free to enlighten us



I'll bite.

Mr Sutherland only has Canadian citizenship, as per the article he could get Dual, but chose to keep just a singular Canadian passport. Which speaks volume in my opinion. Should people with dual Citizenship get to vote? Interesting point/question, but what if they have dual British/Canadian or Australian/Canadian? 

You make a point about how these people are essentially "gaming the system" and more or less don't care about Canada until they need help. Should they be able to vote? I have a question, what benefit do they get from voting? As a another poster stated Canada has voting based on ridings. if the candidate you voted for doesn't get in your vote doesn't really count for anything. Why would anyone who doesn't give a damn about Canada bother to vote by proxy in an election that likely isn't even being covered in the country that they presently reside in. I assume (correct me if I am wrong) that it isn't the easiest thing to vote by proxy when you live in different country let alone continent. It was hard enough for me to vote in the riding I "lived in" while I was attending university as the only thing with my new address on it was a rental agreement for the residence room which I was staying in (which I had to get from housing services) as the utilities were handled by the University. I'm going to be running into a similar problem when I start school again in the Fall as I'm going to attend school in a different Province and will again be living in residence. 

As per the original article
"Although the legislation technically applies to more than one million expats, records show only about 6,000 of them actually voted in the 2011 election."
6000/1 000 000 = 0.6%

So of the expats eligible to vote, only 0.6% of the expats did. i'd say it is safe to assume that of the expats that voted the majority were "engaged" and actually cared about the results. I'd also imagine that those who did vote were more engaged than the general public._ Even if_ none of the expats who voted were "engaged" 6000 divided by 300 or so ridings, this averages to 200 votes a riding when you factor in 4 parties that averages to 50 votes / party. Even if these voters were all disengaged with ulterior motives I'd say it is safe to say the 2011 election was not won by renegade expat votes. 

If we want to talk about disengaged voters what about young adults? Back when i was 18 all of my friends all voted for a the opposing party just so they could text me after and say "just voted for XXXX You mad?". My brother voted for the Family Christian Coalition Party because he thought it was "funny". I can guarantee some of sisters high-school peers voted for the local Independent candidate after he "Lit up" the other candidates at the High-School "All Candidates Debate" but other than that said individual didn't really have plan. What about me? When I first moved to were I currently reside there was an election only a month after I arrived, i was now considered to be "engaged" enough to vote there as were the other few thousand students who moved in a few weeks prior. Similarly the exact same thing will be happening to me again this October when I move yet again to begin more schooling, this time in different province. As will many other students who in just a few short weeks will begin their post secondary studies. What about the students who have been in University for two years now and have moved so far away they are only able to come home at Christmas? Are they really engaged with what is happening in their local riding? What about young adults who have/will turn 18 this year? Do they really know what is going on? (Not to pick on young voters as this is my age demographic, however I figured I should include a few examples....)

i also went to High School with a girl who graduated with multiple full ride scholarships to Universities in the states for Women's Golf. Why would she turn that down? I haven't talked to her in a few years now, but this Election I imagine she will not be able to vote.. Is that really fair? She also wouldn't have voted in the previous federal election because she wasn't old to enough to do so...

Take a look at my grand father's employment history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Champ

I'm not exactly sure what year he moved back to USA  but for as long as I remember he lived in the states. He is dead now, but when he died the funeral was at the Canadian Embassy in Washington D.C. (By the way he didn't return home to Canada for his Cancer Treatments either :). He had a room in his house which was known as the "Canada Room" which had a bunch of memorabilia from Canada, Pretty neat guy all around and I wish I would of gotten to know him better. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/journalist-henry-champ-dies-at-75-1.1161865

 "Despite all of his sophistication, he was a home-grown farm guy who loved Manitoba, loved rural communities and loved the university he had attended," Brandon University president Deborah Poff told CBC News.

I'm not sure if he voted in the 2011 election but I wouldn't be surprised at all if he did. 

Edit:

Spelling/Grammar


----------



## cupper (28 Jul 2015)

GD said:
			
		

> If I have spend the last 5,10,15 or 20 years living outside of Canada what right do I have to make decisions that affect people in Canada directly while they have little to no effect on me?



Because the outcome of an election may have a profound effect on you as an expat, in that the policies that the new (or reelected) government will have an effect on you as a Canadian Citizen, regardless of the fact that you exercise your right to vote or not. And if you do chose to return to Canada at some point in the future, you will be effected by any laws, policies and regulations put forth by that government.


----------



## chrisf (28 Jul 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> Because the outcome of an election may have a profound effect on you as an expat, in that the policies that the new (or reelected) government will have an effect on you as a Canadian Citizen, regardless of the fact that you exercise your right to vote or not. And if you do chose to return to Canada at some point in the future, you will be effected by any laws, policies and regulations put forth by that government.



Government policies will also have an affect on immigration, shouldn't we also let non-Canadians who are good candidates for immigration vote?


----------



## cupper (29 Jul 2015)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Government policies will also have an affect on immigration, shouldn't we also let non-Canadians who are good candidates for immigration vote?



Sure. Why the hell not? The more the merrier!  ;D


----------



## Remius (29 Jul 2015)

The sad part is that Canadians like Mr. Sutherland, Wayne Gretzky and anyone else living and working abroad who contribute to the Canadian fabric  can't contribute to what amounts to a citizen's basic right. 

In this age of globalisation this is a** backwards.


----------



## Strike (29 Jul 2015)

So, here's an example for you.  The last Quebec referendum.

My cousin, from Quebec City, was working and living in San Diego at the time.  Prior to moving there he was a staunch separatist.  Like many with that belief, not long after leaving the province and discovering what the rest of the world was like, his views changed and, come the referendum, he wanted to vote.

The Quebec government, knowing that this was the case with many expats, tried everything in their power to keep Quebec expats from voting (ask any military member whose riding is in Quebec how hard it was to vote).  Rules were changed several times and many at the last minute.  But my cousin was determined to vote and jumped on a plane to Quebec to be able to mark his ballot.

By eliminating the ability of expats to vote we are possibly changing the outcome of any major event.  Look at what happened in Ireland and how many expats returned to their country to vote on gay marriage.  We can say that we would never have a situation where the votes of expats are THAT important, but no one has a crystla ball.  And not everyone can afford to fly back home to cast a ballot.

I have another cousin who has been living in Japan for 15+yrs now and still actively participates in the voting process.  Japan doesn't have a dual citizenship option and, rather than losing his status as a Canadian to become a voting member of society there (which would be quite easy given his spouse and two children are Japanese) he remains Canadian, because he loves his country that much.

So, ask yourselves, what is the real harm in allowing expats to vote?  Ask it again, this time NOT allowing them to vote, and consider the referendum when you think about that.  There are over a million expats and let's guess a conservative 10% of them are from Quebec.  How much more of a difference between the YES and NO votes do you think there would have been if voting for Quebec expats had been easier?


----------



## jollyjacktar (29 Jul 2015)

If you're Canadian, you should be able to exercise your right to vote should you so choose to do so.  Too many of our brothers and sisters have given everything to assure this right exists.


----------



## Infanteer (29 Jul 2015)

Acorn said:
			
		

> The vote is strictly linked to citizenship. Period. The '93 law also allowed federal judges the vote, and I would regard the "visit reset" built into that as intentional, not a "loophole."
> 
> The "passports of convenience" in the ME and elsewhere don't vote, even though they could (up 'till now).
> 
> ...



+1 to this.

It's the 21st century.  Welcome to the globalized world.  I am more than happy to have an engaged citizen of Canada who has an interest in exercising the soveriegn franchise as opposed to the mass in Canada who can't be bothered to go down and vote.


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Jul 2015)

GD said:
			
		

> If I have spend the last 5,10,15 or 20 years living outside of Canada what right do I have to make decisions that affect people in Canada directly while they have little to no effect on me?


On that, one of the judges had this to say:  "Permitting all non-resident citizens to vote would *allow them to participate in making laws that affect Canadian residents on a daily basis, but have little to no practical consequence for their own daily lives*. This would erode the social contract and undermine the legitimacy of the laws. The legislation is aimed at strengthening Canada’s system of government and is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."  
Isn't that also a defence for, say, letting permanent residents (used to be known as landed immigrants) living here vote?  


			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> I am more than happy to have an engaged citizen of Canada who has an interest in exercising the soveriegn franchise as opposed to the mass in Canada who can't be bothered to go down and vote.


Zackly!


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (29 Jul 2015)

Strike said:
			
		

> So, here's an example for you.  The last Quebec referendum.
> 
> My cousin, from Quebec City, was working and living in San Diego at the time.  Prior to moving there he was a staunch separatist.  Like many with that belief, not long after leaving the province and discovering what the rest of the world was like, his views changed and, come the referendum, he wanted to vote.
> 
> ...



You're also eliminating some of your most successful folk.  International businessmen and women, sports stars, great industrialists, famous people.  All of whom are every bit as Canadian as you or I.  

I have a very close friend who has a Phd from Oxford, worked as a Post-Doctoral fellow for the NIH in DC and just started her own NGO.  Technically, she is not allowed to vote now because of this.  Just the sort of successful people we want to eliminate from the political process. :facepalm:


----------



## SupersonicMax (29 Jul 2015)

The real issue is not about letting Canadian citizens vote.  It's about who we let become Canadian.


----------



## Remius (29 Jul 2015)

This may be far fetched but if the courts are claiming that Canadian Citizens that have been living outside of Canada for over 5 years have no more social contract and can't vote could the same be said for anything else (including legal obligations to Canada?).  I could see someone using this argument to try and avoid extradition or paying taxes or whatever or even avoid prosecution by Canada.


----------



## dapaterson (29 Jul 2015)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> The real issue is not about letting Canadian citizens vote.  It's about who we let become Canadian.



Silly First Nations folks, letting those French and Brits stay and ruin everything.


----------



## cupper (29 Jul 2015)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> The real issue is not about letting Canadian citizens vote.  It's about who we let become Canadian.



Sorry Max. It's clear cut that this is about whether Canadian Citizens are allowed to exercise a right given to them under the Canadian Constitution. Whether they choose to exercise that right is up to them.

It has nothing to do with who becomes a Canadian and who doesn't. Unless you have Canadian Citizenship, you don't get to vote.

Let's not conflate the issue with a debate on immigration.

These are people who hold Canadian Citizenship. For reasons of their own, they relocated outside the country, either by choice or necessity. They are not immigrants / refugees / visitors who are looking to obtain citizenship.


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Jul 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Silly First Nations folks, letting those French and Brits stay and ruin everything.


As the hard-right in Italy says, "They couldn't control immigration - now they live on reserves."  ;D


----------



## SupersonicMax (29 Jul 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Silly First Nations folks, letting those French and Brits stay and ruin everything.



Perhaps it was relevant 300 years ago.  Not so much anymore.  



			
				cupper said:
			
		

> Sorry Max. It's clear cut that this is about whether Canadian Citizens are allowed to exercise a right given to them under the Canadian Constitution. Whether they choose to exercise that right is up to them.
> 
> It has nothing to do with who becomes a Canadian and who doesn't. Unless you have Canadian Citizenship, you don't get to vote.



Precisely my point.  If we did a better job at weeding out "Canadians of convenience", I doubt this issue would even exist.  I agree, every Canadian citizen should have the right to vote (and it is supported by the Charter). 



			
				cupper said:
			
		

> Let's not conflate the issue with a debate on immigration.



Not only should this debate include immigration but also emigration.  The issue of voting is linked to Citizenship which inherently involved both.



			
				cupper said:
			
		

> These are people who hold Canadian Citizenship. For reasons of their own, they relocated outside the country, either by choice or necessity. They are not immigrants / refugees / visitors who are looking to obtain citizenship.



This is an issue I have an issue making my mind on.  On one side, I think people relocating outside the country permanently should give up their citizenship after X years of not permanently residing in Canada because of factors outside the Government's (any level) control (barring some exceptions).  On the other side, I understand Canadians living abroad may identify more to Canadian culture than to their host nation's.  I think I lean more towards the side of people giving up their citizenship.  After all, most people do make that decision on their own and at that point, they start being "Canadians of convenience".  It does bring issues though, like a case where the host nation won't give citizenship. But again, I my mind is not set.

Cupper:  Just out of curiosity, why won't you become an American citizen?


----------



## Blackadder1916 (29 Jul 2015)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> This is an issue I have an issue making my mind on.  On one side, I think people relocating outside the country permanently should give up their citizenship after X years of not permanently residing in Canada because of factors outside the Government's (any level) control (barring some exceptions).  On the other side, I understand Canadians living abroad may identify more to Canadian culture than to their host nation's.  I think I lean more towards the side of people giving up their citizenship.  After all, most people do make that decision on their own and at that point, they start being "Canadians of convenience".  It does bring issues though, like a case where the host nation won't give citizenship. But again, I my mind is not set.



So which of these expat Canadians should be stripped of citizenship?







They probably all aren't ordinarily resident in the USA - four of the twenty-three on the roster play for Canadian teams.  Now, if one of the conditions for playing on Team Canada was meeting the same criteria as for voting, how long do you expect the winning streak to last?

Yes, personal bias will enter into such an argument and if honestly assessed the original drafters of the legislation in 1993 and those who tweaked it in 2007 didn't mean those kind of "Canadians of convenience".

Should this expat Canadian (_does she still reside in the US?_) also be excluded from voting?




Didn't she have something to do with politics in 1993?

Now there are (in my opinion at least) some expats who should not be permitted to vote - in fact we shouldn't even let them back into the country.


----------



## SupersonicMax (29 Jul 2015)

Blackladder, I did specify with some exceptions. 

For the common of mortals (who arguably do not bring anything to the Country, as opposed to exceptions who should bring something significant to Canada to be considered an exception), why should they enjoy all the benefits of being Canadian?


----------



## cupper (29 Jul 2015)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Cupper:  Just out of curiosity, why won't you become an American citizen?



I am a Canadian. Always have been, always will be. I breath hockey and I bleed maple syrup.

The only real benefit that I would receive from taking US citizenship is having the right to vote in US elections. And with the way things are politically down here since I moved here in 2001 certainly don't really make that a good argument for pursuing it. It does have significant tax implications when I move back to Canada in the distant future, as like many US expats are dealing with now, having to file returns and pay tax on foreign earned income while living outside the country.

Just having legal residency status here in the US creates some legal issues for travel. As a Canadian living in the US I have not been able to travel to Cuba (up until a couple of months ago anyway, and not that I've had that desire). Also, if I was younger I would also be required to register for selective service (or that is my understanding anyway) as a green card holder.

But it all comes down to the fact that I was born in Canada, not the US, and I identify with my home country (although I still have a deep yearning to return to the land of my forefathers and reclaim the Scottish throne from those evil English tyrants).

[size=10pt]*** If there are any DHS agents monitoring this site, just ignore all of that. I don't know who this Cupper guy is, God Bless America, I love Baseball, hot dogs and apple pie. ***[/size]


----------



## cupper (29 Jul 2015)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> So which of these expat Canadians should be stripped of citizenship?


Crosby gets my vote (but I am somewhat biased in that respect) ;D >


----------



## Blackadder1916 (29 Jul 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> Crosby gets my vote (but I am somewhat biased in that respect) ;D >



Only the ones who left out their false teeth are true Canadians.


----------



## Strike (29 Jul 2015)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Blackladder, I did specify with some exceptions.
> 
> For the common of mortals (who arguably do not bring anything to the Country, as opposed to exceptions who should bring something significant to Canada to be considered an exception), why should they enjoy all the benefits of being Canadian?



So you would recommend a class system?


----------



## SupersonicMax (29 Jul 2015)

Call it what you want.  The essence of the system would be black and white with room for flexibility if the GoC deems an exception is warranted.


----------



## dapaterson (29 Jul 2015)

So, six generations of welfare in east-end Montreal = vote in elections.  Get a high-paying influential job in Singapore and be part of the Canadian expat scene, building relationships and trade between Canada and Singapore = no vote in elections.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Jul 2015)

Shall we ask why prisoners of our Federal and Provincial Institutions have a say in our nations  Law making?


----------



## cupper (29 Jul 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Shall we ask why prisoners of our Federal and Provincial Institutions have a say in our nations  Law making?



Because they aren't planning to leave the country any time soon.  >


----------



## George Wallace (29 Jul 2015)

Strike said:
			
		

> So you would recommend a class system?



Actually, we, with Bill C-24, have created a sort of class system.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Jul 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> Because they aren't planning to leave the country any time soon.  >



....and not one of them has the Order of Canada.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Jul 2015)

It would be interesting to see the numbers of how many voted from outside. Frankly with the numbers we get, I'm not sure I want to discourage voting. How do they select which riding the vote goes to?


----------



## Blackadder1916 (30 Jul 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> . . . How do they select which riding the vote goes to?



The person registering to vote provides the address and it can be (according to the Canada Elections Act)

(e) the address of the elector’s last place of ordinary residence in Canada before he or she left Canada or the address of the place of ordinary residence in Canada of the spouse, the common-law partner or a relative of the elector, a relative of the elector’s spouse or common-law partner, a person in relation to whom the elector is a dependant or a person with whom the elector would live but for his or her residing temporarily outside Canada;


----------



## Acorn (30 Jul 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> It would be interesting to see the numbers of how many voted from outside. Frankly with the numbers we get, I'm not sure I want to discourage voting. How do they select which riding the vote goes to?



The quoted numbers from the last election are approximately 6,000 out of 1,000,000 Canadian citizens abroad. Imagine a 0.6% turnout in any election.

Plus consider how many of the 6,000 were ones who would qualify for exemptions under the new rules (CF, Foreign Service, working for Gov't sponsored NGOs). 

So, we are seeking to disenfranchise a small number of *engaged Canadians* for what purpose? The gov't says it's to close the "reset loophole" in the original '93 legislation (if you visit Canada any time during those 5 years the clock restes). Loophole? Anyone think it was deliberate in order to allow those who retain a connection to Canada to remain politically engaged if they wish?

The arguments about taxation are moot - if I continue to live abroad after my current exemption is ended I'll still pay taxes on my pension, but I won't be able to vote. So, the other argument, that by living broad I have no personal stake in the Federal political system, means I don't care about members of my family who remain, or the state of the country should I return, nor the impact on my pension or medical benefits (as a CF retiree I'm covered by the Public Service Health Care Plan for retirees - I pay higher premiums for living abroad). How can they decide, by virtue of my physical location, how much I care about my Country?

I'd recommend the dissenting judge's arguments as a good read. I think the other two were asleep at the Constitutional switch, and the SCC is going to give them a smack-down. Too bad about the timing.


----------

