“...the Canada you once knew and were so proud of, is no longer Canada.”
July 29, 2015 9:28 AM Subscribe

“My name is Donald Sutherland. My wife’s name is Francine Racette. We are Canadians....” [The Globe and Mail]

“Did you know that? If you don’t live here all the time you can’t vote. Americans who live abroad can vote. They can vote because they’re citizens! Citizens! But I can’t. Because why? Because I’m not a citizen? Because what happens to Canada doesn’t matter to me? Ask any journalist that’s ever interviewed me what nationality I proudly proclaim to have. Ask them. They’ll tell you. I am a Canadian. But I’m an expatriate and the Harper government won’t let expatriates participate in Canadian elections.”

Related:

- Expat voters' rights battle costs Harper government $1.3M so far. [CBC]
- Long-term expats don't have right to vote in federal elections, court rules. [CBC]
- Tories' New Election Law Changes Could Hurt Liberals, Data Suggests. [HuffPoCanada]
- Court won’t suspend rule governing voter information cards. [Toronto Star]

In a split decision, the Court of Appeal overturned a ruling [.pdf] that had restored the right of more than one million long-term expats to vote. Canada's "social contract" entails citizens submitting to laws because they had a voice in making them through voting, the ruling states. "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," Justice George Strathy wrote for the majority court. "This would erode the social contract and undermine the legitimacy of the laws."

posted by Fizz (137 comments total) 13 users marked this as a favorite

The picture of Sutherland at the top of that column so so ferocious that I fear that he is going to personally punch every member of the cabinet right now.

I've always thought of Sutherland as the wily sort, but apparently he can do brute force, too.

Also, more on topic, what the hell kind of national policy is that?
posted by GenjiandProust at 9:32 AM on July 29, 2015 [6 favorites]

Donald Sutherland should be allowed to vote in any election he fucking wants to. Canada? Sure. U.S.? Absolutely. Baseball Hall of Fame? You bet. Miss America? Definitely.

"I was in Animal House and didn't take a percentage. You fucking owe me."
posted by Etrigan at 9:34 AM on July 29, 2015 [37 favorites]

I lived outside of Canada for 10 years, so this Ontario Court of Appeal ruling would affect me as well.

However, Sutherland should not have compared Canada with the US. US expats must declare their income to the IRS at tax time, an onerous and sometimes traumatic yearly event (they also have to deal with local tax authorities).

Canada doesn't have that. Thanks to reciprocal agreements, if you pay local tax on income earned overseas and you are a Canadian non-resident, you do not have to file Canadian taxes.

So that's a good thing.
posted by Nevin at 9:35 AM on July 29, 2015 [11 favorites]

This angers me so much and I am just a PR. I am an American citizen who has no intention of ever living in my home country again, but at least I vote in every election I can and I am thankful I am able to do so.

(Yes, the tax thing is bullshit, but I make a pittance so I hope the IRS enjoys the fact I spend money to file NOTHING WORTH IT every goddamn year.)
posted by Kitteh at 9:35 AM on July 29, 2015 [4 favorites]

what the hell kind of national policy is that?

The kind that basically says 'Fuck you!'.

fuckharper tag is appropriate.
posted by Fizz at 9:36 AM on July 29, 2015 [6 favorites]

Sane international tax policy is definitely a good thing, but never, ever, ever accept lower taxes as an acceptable exchange for losing the right to participate in democracy. Among other things, once you've lost the right to participate, you've also lost your fractional share in the decision about how that works going forward, and you have no guarantee that tax policy will stay sane forever.
posted by Sequence at 9:39 AM on July 29, 2015 [14 favorites]

What I don't understand is why the Ontario Court of Appeal is ruling on this.
posted by Nevin at 9:39 AM on July 29, 2015 [1 favorite]

It's worth noting in this discussion that Sutherland, unlike many expats, has continued to maintain a home in Canada, though he doesn't live there long enough each year to become a resident, likely for tax reasons.

I guess that's really the question: are you allowed to vote only if you pay income tax? (presumably he pays property tax and gst and the like).
posted by bonehead at 9:44 AM on July 29, 2015 [2 favorites]

Australia has a similar rule, though I believe it's 6 years.
Politics is inherently geographic, and I find myself a bit torn on the issue. Should someone who hasn't lived in my neighbourhood for 20 years have a right to influence politics that affect me, but not them?

How do we determine what riding people should vote in, if they have citizenship but have never lived in the country?

Given that .6% of the previously eligible expat voters actually did so in the last election, I find myself more concerned with the potential disenfranchisement of voters using information cards as ID.
posted by Sleddog_Afterburn at 9:45 AM on July 29, 2015 [9 favorites]

Canada has changed more in the past 10 years than any other (relatively stable) nation I'm aware of. Politically, it's quite a different place than it once was. Day to day life doesn't seem to be terribly affected, although that's only based on anecdotes.

So it basically hasn't changed.
posted by Keith Talent at 9:50 AM on July 29, 2015 [4 favorites]

"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," Justice George Strathy wrote for the majority court.

By this logic, all non-citizen permanent residents should have the right to vote.
posted by rocket88 at 9:51 AM on July 29, 2015 [33 favorites]

I do wish I could vote as a PR. I mean, I already pay taxes and am involved with my community, so what's the problem? I contribute to the economy and welfare of my chosen country and happily so.
posted by Kitteh at 9:53 AM on July 29, 2015 [6 favorites]

are you allowed to vote only if you pay income tax?

I don't understand the tax angle of this argument. Should you be allowed to vote if you do pay taxes?

If you're Canadian, you should be able to vote. Resident but paying taxes? Sorry, no vote. Canadian citizen living abroad? Yep, you should be able to vote.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 9:53 AM on July 29, 2015 [3 favorites]

Also working its way through the house, as a backup if C-23 is struck down, is C-50, which will require Canadians living overseas to re-register to vote every election, within the 36-day election period.

Text and debate
posted by frimble at 9:54 AM on July 29, 2015 [1 favorite]

I don't understand the tax angle of this argument.

Whether you are a resident or expat also defines if you need to pay income tax, as I understand it.
posted by bonehead at 9:58 AM on July 29, 2015 [1 favorite]

They offer online voter registration now, so that will help, but getting and submitting ballot within that window will be tight. Maybe Canadian embassies should have ballot boxes.
posted by peppermind at 10:04 AM on July 29, 2015

He should definitely have the right to vote. It's ridiculous. But even more especially if he could convince his son Kiefer to do another season of 24.
posted by Seekerofsplendor at 10:05 AM on July 29, 2015

Welcome to two-tier citizenship.
posted by milnews.ca at 10:08 AM on July 29, 2015 [6 favorites]

I'm a permanent resident in the U.S. and am disenfranchised by this.

Canada doesn't have that. Thanks to reciprocal agreements, if you pay local tax on income earned overseas and you are a Canadian non-resident, you do not have to file Canadian taxes.

So that's a good thing.
posted by Nevin at 11:35 AM on July 29

This is only sort of true. You still owe taxes on Canadian income, which means that for example, if my small press (which is a DBA) sells more books in Canada than the basic amount you can make in income before you owe taxes, then I will need to remit taxes on that income. Likewise, I used to do web design for a living and would have owed taxes on income from Canadian clients if I'd ever made enough to owe taxes on it.

So it's not that we don't have to pay taxes. It's that we don't normally make enough money from Canadian sources to owe taxes. If we do, we have to pay those taxes regardless of where we live.

And anyway the whole tax thing is irrelevant. We don't disenfranchise Canadians who don't pay taxes but do live in Canada.

How do we determine what riding people should vote in, if they have citizenship but have never lived in the country?

Given that .6% of the previously eligible expat voters actually did so in the last election, I find myself more concerned with the potential disenfranchisement of voters using information cards as ID.
posted by Sleddog_Afterburn at 11:45 AM on July 29

Most of the people who are affected by this have lived in Canada. When I was still allowed to vote, I voted in my parent's riding because that's where I was last resident.

In the last election, the five-year rule was in place, so the small number of expats voting were only those who had not been outside the country for more than five years. For example, I was not permitted to vote, and would have.

The number of expats who would vote without the five-year rule is about 12-15,000 people (instead of the roughly 6,000 who voted in the last election). Still a small number, of course.

I am also concerned about voter ID laws. I think disenfranchising one class of citizens empowers the Harper government to seek to disenfranchise other groups, and it's all connected. I have a very real fear that we're moving to a system where you have to be a Canadian In Good Standing in order to vote, and you'll lose your good standing if you engage in activism the government doesn't like, or don't make enough money to pay taxes, or have ever been convicted of a crime, or oh god am I giving them ideas just by writing this comment.
posted by joannemerriam at 10:10 AM on July 29, 2015 [12 favorites]

Whether you are a resident or expat also defines if you need to pay income tax, as I understand it.

A caveat being that Revenue Canada decides resident/non-resident not only on whether you live outside of Canada for more than half the year, but also on whether you are deemed to have significant ties to Canada. So under C-23, it is possible, albeit not the norm, for someone to be a Canadian citizen, pay taxes in Canada, but not be allowed to vote.

They offer online voter registration now, so that will help, but getting and submitting ballot within that window will be tight.

Made tighter by the fact that overseas ballots must be received a week before election day.
posted by frimble at 10:11 AM on July 29, 2015 [1 favorite]

By this logic, all non-citizen permanent residents should have the right to vote.

To me, it makes way more sense to grant the franchise, collect taxes, etc. on the basis of residence than on the basis of citizenship. I'm a US citizen living outside of the US; to me, it's weird that I have tax obligations to the US and it's weird that I have the right to vote in the US (I file tax returns because hassle-aversion trumps weirdness-aversion, but I don't file absentee ballots; I don't live there and what happens there is not my business). On the other hand, if I find myself living in my current adopted country (the UK) for a longish time, I can imagine becoming annoyed at my inability to vote, since all of the practical stuff that's affected by local politics will affect me just as it does a citizen.

I don't really see what the point of having a separate category called citizenship is, beyond travel documents. It doesn't make sense that there should be rights not available to legal residents, who have to deal with the same shit/share in the same actual benefits that citizens do, granted for very abstract or nationalistic reasons.

So yeah, permanent residents should be able to vote, run for office, etc. I'm not sure about expats. Is the idea that everyone should be able to vote somewhere? If I could only pick one, I'd much rather be able to vote in the place I chose to live, not in the place where I happened to be born.
posted by busted_crayons at 10:13 AM on July 29, 2015 [11 favorites]

After reading the link, it doesn't sound like expats can register online anyway, because they've got to submit a ton of documentation to prove sufficient Canadian-ness. Shouldn't a Canadian passport do that?
posted by peppermind at 10:16 AM on July 29, 2015

Passports don't have in them the last address at which you lived in Canada. And without proof of address, from a shorter list than that for Canadians living in Canada, or a vouch from a someone living in the same riding, you won't be allowed to vote.
posted by frimble at 10:19 AM on July 29, 2015

Here's the HarperPress counter-attack: "Donald Sutherland is from Canada the same way Mike Duffy is from PEI."
posted by No Robots at 10:19 AM on July 29, 2015

The Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled wisely. People who live abroad are not directly affected by Canadian law, thus should not have a say in what Canada's laws will be.

"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," Justice George Strathy wrote for the majority court."This would erode the social contract and undermine the legitimacy of the laws."

Much as I despise Stephen Harper and assume his support for this law is nothing but cynical, a stopped watch is right twice a day.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 10:20 AM on July 29, 2015 [3 favorites]

Did you read the editorial in Le Monde?

No sir Mr. Sutherland, actually I am not a regular reader of Le Monde. On failing to find the editorial referred to, I do notice that Le Monde coverage of Canada is currently dominated by such traditional Canadian topics as bears, trees [on fire], and rocks, so it probably is actually still Canada.
posted by sfenders at 10:22 AM on July 29, 2015 [1 favorite]

In the UK one is excluded from voting after a certain length of time abroad.
It has gone up over the years and it is now 15 years.
Due to my working and living abroad this rule has worked out so that I have not been eligible to vote in a general election since Margaret Thatcher beat out Michael Foot for a second round in 10 Downing Street when I was 20.
It was my choice to sacrifice voting for decent weather and the UK has always looked after me in other ways, but this still stings a bit.
posted by duncan42 at 10:24 AM on July 29, 2015

Canada has changed more in the past 10 years than any other (relatively stable) nation I'm aware of. Politically, it's quite a different place than it once was. Day to day life doesn't seem to be terribly affected, although that's only based on anecdotes.

I couldn't tell if you live in Canada or not, but it's been 10 years since I returned to live mostly full-time in Canada (we spend on average 3 months of the year in Japan), and I would agree Canada has changed. But for the better, or for the worse?

Chretien, just like Harper, was an autocrat. Harper, just like Pierre Trudeau, attempted successfully to rebrand Canada. In fact, I would say that the Conservatives are sort of an interesting mix of Liberal and NDP policies.

The biggest change I think of is that under Harper the federal government has stepped out of the way of the provinces. There is no more Health Accord, and the unwillingness to enforce standards is going to mean the death of public healthcare in the Maritimes.

What has changed the most under Harper is Canada's approach to foreign relations. It's a policy that is constructed to speak entirely to a domestic audience. It's embarrassing.

But nothing much has really changed in Canada over the past twenty years, except for the fact that the PQ and the BQ are apparently defunct. The last seismic shift in Canada I think was FTA with the US and then NAFTA, but that era came to an end in 2008/09 thanks to Obama's "Buy American" policies.
posted by Nevin at 10:27 AM on July 29, 2015 [2 favorites]

I suspect that Sutherland's file has a ON NO ACCOUNT ALLOWED TO VOTE notice in it in Harper's handwriting, given that Donald's late father-in-law was the notoriously socialist “Greatest Canadian” ...
posted by scruss at 10:29 AM on July 29, 2015 [9 favorites]

An earlier Globe opinion piece argues that Canadians living abroad are affected by Canadian laws and policies.
posted by frimble at 10:33 AM on July 29, 2015 [2 favorites]

Chretien, just like Harper, was an autocrat.

I'd argue that he was not, in many important ways. He allowed his cabinet to be a cabinet, for ministers to make decisions that mattered, according to their specialty. Martin is the prime example of this, but Manley, Whelan and even Copps were allowed to make their own policies, speak to them and publically defend their own judgement in ways that the Harper government does not allow.

Chretien was the last PM we had who allowed open access to public servants. Policy used to be simply to report a press contact and a summary of what was said after the fact. Under the recent government, press must submit written questions in advance, and must wait at least a week for response, though longer is not at all unheard of. Actual interviews are very uncommon now and done only after authorization with a select group of people. A reporter can't just phone a PS for a quick fact check like they could prior to 2005.
posted by bonehead at 10:36 AM on July 29, 2015 [15 favorites]

I would say that the Conservatives are sort of an interesting mix of Liberal and NDP policies

you're going to have to show your work on this one
posted by Hoopo at 10:38 AM on July 29, 2015 [23 favorites]

The picture of Sutherland at the top of that column so so ferocious that I fear that he is going to personally punch every member of the cabinet right now.

Hope is better than fear.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 10:38 AM on July 29, 2015 [11 favorites]

I'm not particularly happy with the ruling but it doesn't look like many long-term expats were voting anyway. Between this and the voter information card ruling I think the latter is the more important one as it will make it much harder for post-secondary students to vote where they go to school.

But this increasingly non-inclusive definition of what a full-fledged Canadian is has got to go. I guess we will just have to make sure that enough of them actually vote this fall to put someone else in place to make it happen.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 10:44 AM on July 29, 2015

Canadian citizenship is worthless if it not a guarantee of the right to vote.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:45 AM on July 29, 2015 [7 favorites]

I'd argue that he was not, in many important ways. He allowed his cabinet to be a cabinet, for ministers to make decisions that mattered, according to their specialty.

Flaherty, Stockwell Day, Baird, and Clement have all exercised a great deal of autonomy. The problem Harper has is that unlike the Liberals there has never been very much bench strength. And anyway the institution of the PMO, plus whipped votes is not unique to the Cons.

I would say that the Conservatives are sort of an interesting mix of Liberal and NDP policies

They're both populist, love to shovel money off the back of a truck, don't have a particularly sophisticated economic vision and are popular with rural blue collar voters. Indeed, in BC federal ridings alternate between Con and NDP pretty reliably.

And don't forget that the NDP at the provincial level is ambivalent about "green" economic policy. The BC NDP are extremely reluctant to oppose any resource initiatives. And the largest number of arrests for civil disobedience in Canadian history happened not under Harper but under an NDP government. Protesters were opposed to old-growth logging on Vancouver Island. The NDP put grandmothers in jail for an extended period of time.

Please note: I have campaigned for the provincial and federal NDP, and I despite the Conservatives.
posted by Nevin at 10:45 AM on July 29, 2015 [1 favorite]

It just occurred to me. I never knew my SIL, a Canadian citizen who has lived in the UK for the past ten years, cannot vote. She is a proud Canadian and she is denied the right. That is so messed up.
posted by Kitteh at 10:48 AM on July 29, 2015

But this increasingly non-inclusive definition of what a full-fledged Canadian is has got to go.

I would still like to know why the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled on this. It would also be interesting to research the makeup of the provincial court of appeal.

I read a recent G&M feature that noted that Harper has appointed something like 60%-80% (can't recall the exact number) of all sitting judges in Canada, so presumably the Ontario Court of Appeal has a number (a majority?) of sitting Harperites.
posted by Nevin at 10:49 AM on July 29, 2015

This case will end up going to the SCC, although not in time for this current election. Not only is it a matter of grave national importance and all that jazz, but since the discussion at the Court of Appeal is all about the social contract between the citizenry and the political institutions, that's something that is calling out for the highest court to answer. Not to mention the split decision

Nobody who knows me will be surprised that I think this decision is wrong (although: it's not bullshit; I see where the ONCA is coming from and I'm not convinced, as the application judge is, that legally we should discount international jurisprudence.) But to some degree it's a political matter, the fight. The argument that we are at the forefront of enfranchisement and therefore shouldn't do this is inherently a political notion, rather than a legal one. International norms are to not fall behind on, as opposed to staying out in front.

What I'm saying is, if you're a resident, make sure you fucking vote in the election. Now the non-residents are relying on us.
posted by Lemurrhea at 10:56 AM on July 29, 2015 [3 favorites]

People who live abroad are not directly affected by Canadian law, thus should not have a say in what Canada's laws will be.

I'm trying to understand this general principle above a superficial level and failing. Mostly because Canada and its provinces still tax Canadians who live and work abroad, and so this law seems to set up taxation without representation.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:57 AM on July 29, 2015

Flaherty, Stockwell Day, Baird, and Clement have all exercised a great deal of autonomy.

Flaherty perhaps. Baird got a longer leash because he was well trained (as does Kenny now). The others? They get three point flash cards. And no scrums.

The problem Harper has is that unlike the Liberals there has never been very much bench strength.

That will happen when you ignore (Grey), marginalize (Ablonski) or fire (Prentice) them.
posted by bonehead at 10:59 AM on July 29, 2015 [2 favorites]

Nevin, if you think Canada hasn't changed in the last 10 years, you're not paying attention. Most public institutions are being quietly gutted while everyone's distracted by new Economic Action Plan signs. There's a reason the Anyone But Conservative idea took hold out east.
posted by peppermind at 11:00 AM on July 29, 2015 [10 favorites]

I live abroad and while I am not directly affected by American laws, I do go home to visit family who are affected by them and I like to be able to vote to have my say in those laws because there is a chance I might be one day directly affected. Canadians should definitely have the same right.
posted by Kitteh at 11:01 AM on July 29, 2015

I would still like to know why the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled on this. It would also be interesting to research the makeup of the provincial court of appeal.

Why would they not? The application was brought to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, and then appealed. The applicants are looking for a declaration that part of the Canada Elections Act is unconstitutional. That court has inherent jurisdiction - it's bog-standard to the point that even the lower court doesn't need to make a decision on jurisdiction.

Most applications to declare a law invalid start off in BC/Ontario/Alberta/Quebec Superior Courts, because that's where the people are. And Federal Court is ...different.
posted by Lemurrhea at 11:01 AM on July 29, 2015 [2 favorites]

Nevin, if you think Canada hasn't changed in the last 10 years, you're not paying attention.

I am paying attention, and I just disagree because I happen to remember what was happening in the 1990's.

Anyway, the gravy still flows through Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Western Economic Development, for example.
posted by Nevin at 11:04 AM on July 29, 2015

n BC federal ridings alternate between Con and NDP pretty reliably.

And don't forget that the NDP at the provincial level is ambivalent about "green" economic policy.

The provincial parties often show little to no resemblance to their federal counterparts though. And while I wasn't here for the NDP years with the old growth debates, my understanding has always been that the NDP's traditional allies have been labor, not so much the environment, so the fact they weren't in a hurry to curb logging in a province where there was a big industry employing a large number of people is hardly surprising. People in BC suffer when the lumber/forestry industry falters.

And I would chalk up the orange/blue split in BC to BC having a larger right-wing contingent than people generally assume. I don't think it says the parties are alike.
posted by Hoopo at 11:06 AM on July 29, 2015 [3 favorites]

I'm a little confused by this. Non-residents not voting is not a Harper thing. It predates Harper. And it's not strictly speaking true that non-residents can't vote. You can vote if you intend to move back within 5 years. There is no requirement to somehow prove your intent. You just check the box or fill in your expected/estimated time of return, I don't remember which. AND you don't have to vote at your last Canadian address, so there's no need to prove what address that was. You can vote either in the riding where you last lived or in the riding you expect your most likely to move to when your return. Again, there's no requirement that you somehow prove this, you just say where you're going to register to vote and confirm that it meets one of those requirements.

And paying taxes has nothing to do with voting, except that they're both duties of citizenhsip.

Anyway, I don't feel very strongly about this. I lived abroad and voted, because I intended to move back and did. If Donald Sutherland mostly lives in Canada like he claims, it's unclear to me why he can't vote, but ok.

Lungful of dragon: Mostly because Canada and its provinces still tax Canadians who live and work abroad, and so this law seems to set up taxation without representation.

Canada does not tax citizens who live and work abroad. I didn't pay taxes while living abroad. I have no idea what this statement is based on. And plenty of people are taxed without representation including non-citizen immigrants, tourists, foreign property owners, etc.

It's not the paying taxes that gets you the right to a say. It's the citizenship. Should there be any limits that prevent some citizens from voting? Maybe not, but the reason wouldn't have anything to do with taxes. To be honest, I care a lot more about the disenfranchisement of people incarcerated during elections than about citizen living abroad.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 11:06 AM on July 29, 2015 [3 favorites]

I live abroad and while I am not directly affected by American laws, I do go home to visit family who are affected by them and I like to be able to vote to have my say in those laws because there is a chance I might be one day directly affected.

I dunno..Do we really want to make the argument "you should get to vote if people you know/your family are affected by laws?" Canadians can already vote on the basis of "one day you might be affected" since you can vote if you intend to move back within 5 years.

I realize I sound like I'm saying citizens-abroad-can't-vote-is-a-great-idea, but for the record again, it's more that I don't think it's inherently outrageous. The disenfranchisement of the imprisoned (Canada), of criminals (the US)? That's inherently outrageous. The fact that property owners who don't live in Toronto can vote? That's inherently outrageous. This? I think I could be persuaded by the argument that it should change. And it certainly seems unconstitutional on its face, but somehow I don't feel particularly riled up about it.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 11:13 AM on July 29, 2015 [2 favorites]

I don't think it has to be zero-sum game. I can care about both and I do.
posted by Kitteh at 11:16 AM on July 29, 2015

Huh...ok, on reading one of the supplementary articles, I see that the way the 5 year rule works changed right after I moved back to Canada. My bad. That is marginally more outrageous, but still not as bad as disenfranchising the incarcerated, and allowing non-residents to vote in municipal elections IMO.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 11:18 AM on July 29, 2015

Wasn't prisoners in Canada being denied the right to vote repealed in 2002 with Sauvé v. Canada?
posted by frimble at 11:18 AM on July 29, 2015

Well my bad, again. And yes, caring is not zero sum.

I just looked up voting for prisoners in Ontario elections, and apparently they have to vote by special ballot by mail, which I'm going to rule "inherently outrageous" also. If you live in a nursing home or are in the hospital elections officials will bring you a ballot box. I would think setting up a polling station in prison or taking a ballot box there on election day would be a similarly onerous accommodation.

I will stop posting now. But thanks for pointing that out frimble. One fewer thing to mutter at myself about.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 11:25 AM on July 29, 2015 [1 favorite]

In 2009 the Torries changed the law so my children don't get citizenship. I'm a Canadian who was born outside of Canada who is living outside of Canada.
posted by ianloic at 11:28 AM on July 29, 2015 [1 favorite]

Man- when President Snow calls you out for underhanded dealing...
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 11:37 AM on July 29, 2015 [1 favorite]

Apparently prior to 1993 you wouldn't have had any right to vote if you were living abroad unless you were a soldier, diplomat, etc.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 11:38 AM on July 29, 2015 [1 favorite]

As a Canadian expat, I am impacted by Canadian laws (taxes and voting) and I would like to be able to vote to influence how these laws are modified. Just because I don't pay taxes in Canada on my non-Canadian income doesn't mean it's going to stay that way. Ditto voting as an expat (weird circular argument there but whatever).

Also, I'm actively trying to return to Canada. Expat doesn't mean that you've given up your citizenship or have given up on returning. In fact, since I'm looking for a government or academic job I have a huge interest in getting the best government in. That may not effect my day to day life but it certainly comes up at least once a week.

(Finally, as a scientist looking for large-scale data from Canada, my job involves cursing the Harper government for their data release ideas almost daily and regularly hearing some expert can't be with us because of budget cuts or information restrictions. As one of the few Canadians in these meetings, I'd at least like to be able to say that I tried to change things)
posted by hydrobatidae at 11:41 AM on July 29, 2015 [8 favorites]

One thing the majority seems to place emphasis on is that as we are a parliamentary system the connection is between the citizen and their local MP and riding. If you're a long-term expat then your connection to the riding and MP is much more tenuous.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 11:46 AM on July 29, 2015

By this logic, all non-citizen permanent residents should have the right to vote.

I agree, actually. The notion that people permanently affected by laws are not allowed to vote is bizarre. (Obviously people here on temporary visas, no. Permanent residents, yes.)
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:46 AM on July 29, 2015 [2 favorites]

I'm a Canadian lawyer (and a sentient piece of toast) and I've studied some international constitutional law. There's this term that's used sometimes, "Aspirational". Aspirational legislation has the goal of bettering the lives of the people it applies to.

My hypothesis is that Harper learned about the word "aspirational" and has decided that it is the antithesis of his very being.
posted by LegallyBread at 11:50 AM on July 29, 2015 [8 favorites]

My gut says that the more people see of the world (and people in other places), the more likely they are to be leftish -- environmentally conscious, racially and culturally accepting, globally minded.

It makes perfect sense for a conservative to look to expats when they're looking for low-hanging fruit to engage in voter suppression.

Harper got his majority with something south of 1/3 of the actual popular vote. It's not surprising he's digging to alienate and isolate anyone who categorically doesn't support a blindered worldview, oligarchy-based financial plans and environmentally disastrous policies.
posted by Shepherd at 11:55 AM on July 29, 2015 [8 favorites]

One thing the majority seems to place emphasis on is that as we are a parliamentary system the connection is between the citizen and their local MP and riding.

In my (Tory) riding, this is not something that either the constituents nor the MP seem to care much about. He sends out a lot of mailings explaining policy but I have never known him to take anyone's views under consideration (or even treat them with respect) unless they match the orders he has been given by the PMO.

I school I learned that the role of an MP is to represent his or her constituents to Ottawa. My MP seems to feel his job is to represent Ottawa to his constituents.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 12:03 PM on July 29, 2015 [5 favorites]

The picture of Sutherland at the top of that column so so ferocious that I fear that he is going to personally punch every member of the cabinet right now.

You mean this picture of Sutherland?
posted by Naberius at 12:10 PM on July 29, 2015 [2 favorites]

It's also the government's position that no Canadian citizens fought in WW1 or WW2.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 12:41 PM on July 29, 2015 [7 favorites]

Why should people who don't live here get to vote? (I say this as a Canadian who spent several election cycles living outside the country.)

I am, however, heavily in favour of giving permanent residents the vote in order to make things consistent.
posted by 256 at 12:56 PM on July 29, 2015 [4 favorites]

My hypothesis is that Harper learned about the word "aspirational" and has decided that it is the antithesis of his very being.

Well if you aspirate things usually it kills you, so.
posted by Lemurrhea at 12:57 PM on July 29, 2015

I would say that the Conservatives are sort of an interesting mix of Liberal and NDP policies

oh homeopathy!
posted by srboisvert at 1:08 PM on July 29, 2015

Why should people who don't live here get to vote?

Because if they hold Canadian citizenship, they are still under the legal umbrella of Canada to some extent. They can still be affected directly by Canadian law and policy, so they should have a voice in the making of that law and policy.
posted by Etrigan at 1:09 PM on July 29, 2015 [3 favorites]

My gut says that the more people see of the world (and people in other places), the more likely they are to be leftish -- environmentally conscious, racially and culturally accepting, globally minded.
It makes perfect sense for a conservative to look to expats when they're looking for low-hanging fruit to engage in voter suppression.

I've heard this argument but I don't buy it for Canadian expats because by far the majority are living in the United States. So that means they have at the very least somehow made their peace with living in a far far more conservative country than Canada.

I suspect people willing to move to other countries start out more liberal (it is hardly individually conservative to emmigrate ) but I am really uncertain about how things change over time and exposure to another country's media.
posted by srboisvert at 1:13 PM on July 29, 2015

Why should people who don't live here get to vote?

Because:

3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein. - CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
posted by joannemerriam at 1:17 PM on July 29, 2015 [15 favorites]

Donald Sutherland isn't joking, this is his job.
posted by Sphinx at 1:20 PM on July 29, 2015

That is a very good reason. Legally. Maybe the Constitution should be revised.
posted by 256 at 1:20 PM on July 29, 2015 [1 favorite]

But nothing much has really changed in Canada over the past twenty years

Someone hasn't spoken to any scientists lately.

They're both populist, love to shovel money off the back of a truck, don't have a particularly sophisticated economic vision...

That's what you might think if you bought into the Black Press narrative uncritically I guess.
posted by klanawa at 1:28 PM on July 29, 2015 [6 favorites]

Good luck with that. In the meantime, I would like for my government to stop spending millions of dollars fighting to ignore its own constitution in order to deny me my civil rights.
posted by joannemerriam at 1:29 PM on July 29, 2015 [4 favorites]

I've got a friend I made when we were both teaching English in Japan. I came back to Canada and he has stayed in Japan. He got married to a Japanese citizen and they now have two kids who were born in Japan. The kids are Canadian. They have lived their entire lives in Japan, although they have come to Canada to visit their grandparents a few times.

Assuming they remain in Japan, once they turn 18 should the kids have the right to vote in a Canadian election? And if so, in what riding would they vote?

I could go either way on the first question. As for the second, the only thing that would make sense to me is to have a new riding which is exclusively for expats.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 1:41 PM on July 29, 2015 [1 favorite]

I think everyone should be able to vote somewhere, and if you have to pick one place, it makes more sense to be able to vote in the place where you live, understand the context of political decisions, and will actually be affected by policies.

I am a NZ citizen living in Australia for the past 12 years. Until recently I didn't qualify for citizenship. Now I do if I pay something like $3000 for PR and then wait three years. I'm trying to decide if i can afford that.

Meanwhile I can't vote here, and am constantly incensed at the bullshit our government pulls, often using tax money I paid into. I can vote in NZ as long as it hasn't been more than 2 years since I last visited, which it usually hasn't, but really I have very little idea of the political complexities there now and I don't feel like it's fair I can influence lives of people in a country I am likely never to live in again, just because I happen to be born there.

My husband, due to accident of birth, could probably vote in Sweden, even though he doesn't even speak the language, hasn't lived there since he was five and has no ties there really.
posted by lollusc at 1:53 PM on July 29, 2015

By this logic, all non-citizen permanent residents should have the right to vote.

My non-citizen parents moved to Canada in 1980 and voted in that election, then the constitution was patriated in 1982 and they were disenfranchised. It took them 35 years to get Canadian citizenship and recover their right to vote.
posted by blue_beetle at 2:12 PM on July 29, 2015

Can the rule preventing expats from voting by appealed based on the Charter of Rigts and Freedoms?
posted by radiocontrolled at 2:12 PM on July 29, 2015

That's what this court case and appeal were about - the expats were challenging the Canada Election Act claiming it was a violation of their Charter rights. The court of appeal didn't agree with them, but this will almost certainly go to the Supreme Court of Canada. Too late for this year's election, but at least then we'll know what the rules are. And of course nothing is stopping the government from amending the legislation itself.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 2:46 PM on July 29, 2015 [1 favorite]

I've been thinking of ths since I read it this morning. I'm Canadian, kind of. I have Canadian and British citizenship. I was born, grew up, educated and started my professional life in Canada. I now live in the UK, and have for most of the last decade. I still kinda-sorta have an address in Canada for some banking stuff - specifically my parent's house. 50/50 chance I'd have enough documentation to actually cast a vote in that riding.

However, I do not pay Canadian taxes. I do not use Canadian social services. I do not vote in Canadian elections.

My logic is that in a Westminster-based system where I'm voting for my local candidate, as an expatriate citizen I don't actually have a local candidate. I'd be voting purely on the national scale. But I would have to cast my vote as for a local candidate to represent my interests as a member of a local riding, to which I have absolutely zero real connection - even if I have an interest in Canadian national politics as a whole.

It seems like the only way to resolve that conundrum is to do what some european countries do: have overseas constituencies so you actually CAN vote for a "local" representative as an expat.

For me, the problem exposes the tension in a modern Westminster system. We vote for a local candidate to represent our local constituency. But REALLY we vote for a national party, and everybody operates as such.

Without some honest way to address that, I wouldn't feel right casting a vote in Canada. Even if they let me. Which they probably won't.
posted by generichuman at 3:06 PM on July 29, 2015 [6 favorites]

By the way if you hate your life: It's election time!!!
posted by Lemurrhea at 3:18 PM on July 29, 2015 [2 favorites]

By the way if you hate your life: It's election time!!!

Oh, goodness. This may lift some of the excruciating tedium...
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 4:17 PM on July 29, 2015 [1 favorite]

LOL " launch campaign as early as Sunday"

Dude has been campaigning non-stop for years, from his stupid "Action Plan" signs, to the anti-Trudeau ads, to rebranding the government as "The Harper Government" and having his party logo snuck into literally everything. Not even sure what else he can do outside of lawn signs at this point
posted by Hoopo at 4:30 PM on July 29, 2015 [2 favorites]

Am I missing something really huge? I've been in the US for 13 years on various visas, I've been paying US taxes the whole time, and I don't get to vote in the US. Is there a reason things would be different in Canada?
posted by loulou718 at 4:30 PM on July 29, 2015

You can't vote in the US because you're not an American citizen. This is different: Donald Sutherland is talking about not being able to vote in Canadian elections even though he is a Canadian citizen .
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 4:37 PM on July 29, 2015 [4 favorites]

I'm an American, and I get to vote in the US national elections, despite the fact that I haven't lived in the US for almost 20 years. It makes no sense to me. In fact, almost nothing about expatriate law makes sense to me (have to spend hours doing tax forms just to declare that you don't owe any taxes? costs thousands of dollars to give up citizenship? kids will eventually be able to vote in US national elections despite never having lived in the US?)
posted by Bugbread at 4:42 PM on July 29, 2015 [4 favorites]

Thanks hurdy gurdy girl, that's what I get for reading all the comments before reading the article...
posted by loulou718 at 4:51 PM on July 29, 2015 [1 favorite]

Canada does not tax citizens who live and work abroad. I didn't pay taxes while living abroad. I have no idea what this statement is based on.

That first statement isn't technically true. You paid taxes while living abroad to the government of whatever country you were living in, if you had income there, if it had a tax agreement with Canada. It is absolutely true -- and I suggest if you have no idea for the basis of this, that you look into it -- that if you have what are referred to as 'significant ties' to Canada, which are evaluated on a case by case basis by the Canadian authorities, you are beholden to pay taxes in Canada even if you are expatriate and have paid tax to the local tax authorities where you live. If you have no 'significant ties', which is a worryingly vague yardstick, then you're only beholden in the country of your residence if there is a tax agreement with Canada. In times past, it was generally recommended that you file an NR-73 to establish your standing, but these days, experts on the matter tend to suggest that only if there's any ambiguity about your expat status.

For my part, as a long-term expat Canadian citizen and permanent resident of Korea, I am not entitled to vote in national elections in either Canada or Korea. Which I'm not all that upset by, when it comes down to it, because, even though I hate to say it, I think I have finally lost faith in democracy at that scale.

Also, just to be consistent in every thread that mentions him: Fuck Stephen Harper and his contemptible band of loathsome shithammers.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:59 PM on July 29, 2015 [10 favorites]

like stavrosthewonderchicken, I am a long-term expat Canadian citizen and a non-citizen resident of another country (the US). I entered the US as a university student, and have lived here more or less permanently ever since. I've managed to live my entire adult life in two of the most democratic countries in the world without the right to vote, and I'm a bit amused by the irony of that, but I also understand that is my choice. If voting is that important to me, and if the politics of Canada are that important to me, I should nut up and move back.

I am sympathetic and supportive of Kitteh and Nevin and others who would want it the other way, but like others have said, I'd feel a little weird casting a vote for a riding in Vancouver that I haven't lived in for decades. There's something about that just doesn't feel genuine to me, but I also no longer have the community or filial ties that others on this thread have expressed.

However, I do also agree with busted_crayon's suggestion that voting should be tied more to residency than citizenship. I rather wish there was a reciprocal treaty where I could find my political twin of an American residing in Canada, and I could designate them as having the right to cast a vote on my behalf in Canadian elections and in return for my casting a vote in their name in the US.
posted by bl1nk at 5:47 PM on July 29, 2015 [1 favorite]

“...the Canada you once knew and were so proud of, is no longer Canada.”

I couldn't agree more. Canada continues to become an expensive, hostile and generally unhappy place.
posted by onesidys at 5:48 PM on July 29, 2015 [2 favorites]

I think the logic of voting when living abroad seems more or less reasonable based on the duration. If I live abroad for a year, I think it's quite reasonable/understandable that I would still want to vote in my home country, since I am going back to live there. A Presidential election's consequences last at least 4 years, after all (and realistically continue to be felt afterwards).

As an American, the "no taxation without representation" thing makes me feel I should be allowed to vote indefinitely if I live abroad, since I am still taxed.

If I was not taxed and did not plan to return --- sure, it would be weird for me to keep voting. But would anyone in that situation actually do so? Why would they care?

Presumably this would only affect people who still care strongly about their home country, which mostly would be people who plan to live there again (or who are affected by tax policy, etc even abroad like Americans).
posted by thefoxgod at 6:21 PM on July 29, 2015

Its definitely much more common to allow nonresident citizens to vote than to allow noncitizen residents to vote. Hard to find examples of the latter, especially at the national level. The former seems somewhat common --- while I couldn't find a nice list, it would include the US, UK, Japan, Israel, and Germany. Although some of those have time limits on how long you've been out of the country (US and Japan at least have no such limit, I'm fairly certain).

Assuming they remain in Japan, once they turn 18 should the kids have the right to vote in a Canadian election?

In this particular case they might only have that right for 2 years, since Japan will force them to choose between Canadian and Japanese citizenship when they turn 20.
posted by thefoxgod at 6:55 PM on July 29, 2015

"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..."

I would argue that any general election voter helps to make laws with 'little to no practical consequence' for that particular voter. There are any number of laws which my vote helps to make which have no bearing on me whatsoever. I would also argue the flip side, that an expat voter may indeed have practical consequences to their vote.

This statement is a failure of legal imagination and is intellectually lazy, as I see it.
posted by Capt. Renault at 7:08 PM on July 29, 2015 [6 favorites]

You know, I've been giving some thought to this "people shouldn't be able to vote if the laws don't affect them" argument and it occurs to me that being unaffected by laws might be a feature not a bug.

I'm very troubled by what seems like an exponentially increasing tendency of political discourse being about "how will this affect you?" Every political ad is about "This politician wants to take away your X, but I'm going to give you Y!" The media is constantly asking voters "How will this law affect you?" or asking their opinion and encouraging them / or assuming they should base that on how it will affect them. I'm so sick of hearing people who seem to make their voting decisions based on what the number they expect to find at bottom of a T1 form.

I think this is bad and wrong. We should be forming our political opinions/making our political arguments/voting based on what will make Canada and the world a better place, and based on our understanding of what it means to be a better place.

And maybe ex-pats are in the best position to do that. These are people who love Canada and care deeply about it, but their views aren't tainted by whether or not they're going to save $100 a year. So, I've changed my mind. Bring on the ex-pat voters!
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 10:10 PM on July 29, 2015 [7 favorites]

I dunno, I suspect any benefits from "this law doesn't affect me" would be offset by making decisions based on theorizing, not rooted in reality. Not being exposed to real-world effects, seeing first-hand what bad results policy decisions cause, makes it easier to just go all stupid idealist, which is what begets libertarianism and the like.
posted by Bugbread at 1:09 AM on July 30, 2015

Permanent residents shouldn't be allowed to vote in Federal elections. It doesn't make sense for a person who has literally just arrived to contribute to the formation of stuff like foreign policy and immigration law. I think that a person should make the commitment of becoming a citizen before they help decide whether we should send our soldiers off to kill and die. (Though why is Harper making it so much more onerous and expensive to become a citizen? There is another discouraging and mean-spirited change to our country. The previous system of 3 years residence was just fine).

PRs voting in municipal elections- I think that that is a good idea. Especially in places like Toronto where counsellors effectively represent so many PRs in their areas. People should have a say in choosing them.
posted by beau jackson at 7:56 AM on July 30, 2015

It doesn't make sense for a person who has literally just arrived to contribute to the formation of stuff like foreign policy and immigration law.

Not all permanent residents have 'literally just arrived'. Many have been here for a long time. Permanent residency is not always seen as a stepping stone to citizenship, and there are those who have valid reasons for retaining the 'old' citizenship, no matter the length of time since their arrival in Canada.
posted by Capt. Renault at 10:17 AM on July 30, 2015 [3 favorites]

It doesn't make sense for a person who has literally just arrived to contribute to the formation of stuff like foreign policy and immigration law.

I have not literally just arrived and the time it takes to even get your PR--which is dependent on your circumstances as well--is no small amount either. Hell, I'd love to say in the federal election as a PR, given that crappy voter turn-out of recent. If actual citizens can't be arsed, let those that can be.
posted by Kitteh at 10:21 AM on July 30, 2015 [2 favorites]

On the Permanent Resident front, my city is considering allowing them to vote municipally.

For a democracy experiencing a long period of declining voter turnout, eliminating the ability for any particular group to vote seems very strange. Don't we want more people to vote? Oh, wait, this is Harper... of course not.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 10:52 AM on July 30, 2015 [2 favorites]

I have not literally just arrived

I can appreciate that, I really do. But I'm not talking about one person, I'm talking about our democracy as a whole in all its bureaucracy. Of course not all Permanent Residents have just arrived, I've know some who have been here for decades, and of course many permanent residents would cherish the right to vote more than those Canadians who take it for granted and stay home. Despite all that, what I describe would be a one of the consequence of allowing Permanent Residents to vote, that someone who has just arrived could have a say in where we send our military and for what purpose- or help shape immigration law- when they're likely just begin to get to know the place and find their place in it.

Ok, perhaps we set up a minimum bar for a PRs to prove their stake in the future of the country and be allowed to vote, like living here X number of years etc...then how does that make more sense than just making citizenship the bar?? The only argument I can think of again that is that it's become too onerous to become a citizen in the past year.

To me there just doesn't seem to be a practical way around requiring citizenship to vote in Federal elections. If Halifax were to be a leader in allowing Permanent Residents to vote that would be exciting though.
posted by beau jackson at 11:30 AM on July 30, 2015

Ok, perhaps we set up a minimum bar for a PRs to prove their stake in the future of the country and be allowed to vote, like living here X number of years etc...then how does that make more sense than just making citizenship the bar??

How is citizenship -- which the vast majority of citizens have thrust upon them, rather than affirmatively choosing -- any indication of a "stake in the future of a country" beyond the stake that someone holds by virtue of living there?

Also, suppose it's true that newly-arrived permanent residents (although, in my experience of living in Canada, which was admittedly only 5 years, I didn't meet any "newly-arrived" permanent residents, since getting PR takes a long time) don't "know the place or their place in it" and should therefore not vote. What aspect of citizenship guarantees that the citizen is so knowledgeable, compared to a PR? What about permanent residents who do have such knowledge (say, a PR who has lived in Canada for decades) when compared to certain citizens who have less (say, someone born in Canada who has just reached voting age and lived on Earth for less time than the PR has lived in Canada)? If "knowledge of the place and their place in it" is the appropriate criterion for the franchise, why not just test for that somehow, rather than using citizenship as a proxy?

The very fact that political campaigning, as it is done all over the world, is effective enough for politicians to bother with indicates that voters are not, on the whole, making carefully-considered decisions of the type requiring lots of local cultural and legal knowledge anyway. Plenty of natural-born, culturally-integrated citizens in every representative democracy are making ill-informed, kneejerk decisions at the ballot box, based on poor information and under the influence of sophisticated, cynical marketing, so arguments predicated on the "qualifications" of voters seem questionable. If you're going to take that route: anyone with the juice to pack up and move to another country, and the bureaucracy-fu to successfully apply for Canadian PR status -- I've closely watched several friends go through that process -- is probably more culturally and legally savvy than the average citizen, and more likely to vote intelligently.
posted by busted_crayons at 12:35 PM on July 30, 2015 [3 favorites]

I don't think permanent residents should be able to vote in Canada.

Under the laws of her home country, if my wife were to acquire Canadian citizenship she would have to give up the citizenship of her home country. She does not want to do that and so she will be a Canadian permanent resident for the rest of her life or until the laws change and she's OK with that. People who decide to stay permanent residents instead of becoming citizens do so by choice. They have decided that the benefits of acquiring citizenship, including voting, do not outweigh the costs and they can live with that decision.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 1:15 PM on July 30, 2015

If "knowledge of the place and their place in it" is the appropriate criterion for the franchise, why not just test for that somehow, rather than using citizenship as a proxy?

I keep writing a huge essay. Trying to be brief. One small point- many and perhaps most immigrants do arrive in Canada as permanent residents. The exception being of course those who went through the process while here on a student visa or the like.

To answer your I think it could make sense for a PR who has been in Canada for X number of years to be allowed to vote in Federal elections. But then I'd ask...why doesn't the person just become a citizen? I know that it's not an easy decision for everyone, because sometimes it means giving up another citizenship...but it's a decision that that person has to make- whether to make that particular compromise to become citizen in order to gain the rights. It means that some people with PR status who are in Canada for many years and want to vote are denied the opportunity. But it seems to me that with our system of sovereign nations, it doesn't seem like we can escape people having to make these kinds of compromises and decisions.

We either draw the line at citizens voting, or only PRs who have been here 10 years, or 5 or 3 years...but the line is still somewhere. It will always be a blunt bureaucratic instrument that denied some very competent, sincere and deserving people some rights.
posted by beau jackson at 1:26 PM on July 30, 2015

But then I'd ask...why doesn't the person just become a citizen?

The problem is then that some people -- PR becoming naturalized citizens -- are forced, potentially, to make a giant commitment in order to secure the same rights that people born in Canada attain without making any commitment at all (e.g. giving up other citizenship). Since the advantages of voting are the same for both people, this seems unjust. Why should having a voice in the legislation that affects one have a cost that depends on who one is, when the effects of that legislation do not so discriminate?

It's also interesting to me that the argument against enfranchising PR pretty quickly went to "but then immigrants would have a say in immigration policy"...
posted by busted_crayons at 1:33 PM on July 30, 2015 [2 favorites]

People who decide to stay permanent residents instead of becoming citizens do so by choice. They have decided that the benefits of acquiring citizenship, including voting, do not outweigh the costs and they can live with that decision.

...or the current government keeps making it fucking hard for people to become citizens.
posted by Kitteh at 1:49 PM on July 30, 2015 [3 favorites]

It's also interesting to me that the argument against enfranchising PR pretty quickly went to "but then immigrants would have a say in immigration policy"...

I didn't say that. I said that if PRs could vote, then a person who has arrived, day 1, in Canada would have a say in Immigration policy and military action, which I think a reasonable objection for reasons other than of xenophobia or anti-immigrantion, which is what I think you're implying.

Regarding your point that some have to unfairly sacrifice way more to get the same voting rights, well you're right. It seems to me that this is an effect of it being unfair that we're all born in different places and fall into this legal system of sovereign nations. It's not fair to begin with. I don't know how to fix it and I can understand why some people are anarchists.

Let me also say that, I am defending my position but it's difficult to have this conversation when I don't actually know what you're proposing to fix this imbalance. Maybe you believe that PRs should be able to vote in the Federal election after a few years of residence...well then my point above is not an argument against that and there is no reason for us to hammer on it.
posted by beau jackson at 1:52 PM on July 30, 2015

...or the current government keeps making it fucking hard for people to become citizens.

I do think that this is, on some level, a deliberate effort to disenfranchise people. Just like taking away health care for refuge claimants was a cynical and mean attempt to disincentive people from claiming assilum here. All part of a program that wants immigrants mostly as bodies to fill low-paying job, to be an economic cog in the machine.
posted by beau jackson at 1:56 PM on July 30, 2015 [1 favorite]

...or the current government keeps making it fucking hard for people to become citizens.

Yeah, the Harper government isn't exactly covering itself in glory on the immigration/citizenship front, but we're still much easier to immigrate to than most other countries.

As far as people born in Canada not having to sacrifice anything to become Canadian, that is only the case if they have no claim to any other citizenship. The PR is already a citizen of their home country, me, Canada is all I've got. So making the PR give up their old one to acquire the new one doesn't seem unfair. My kids were born in Canada but also have Japanese citizenship. Theoretically Japan will make them choose one when they turn 20 (I say theoretically because my understanding is that while the law is on the books everyone just turns a blind eye to it).
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 1:58 PM on July 30, 2015

You might have gotten that impression from what I wrote, perhaps my arguments weren't very elegant. Having citizenship vs permanent residence is not necessarily a reflection on a particular individuals desire to live and contribute to the place. Citizenship is a tool, rather blunt one, for helping to ensure that voters have a big stake in life in Canada.

I haven't been arguing against anything except letting literally ALL PRs, even those who arrived yesterday, vote in the federal election. And I haven't read another idea here for a compromise between letting everyone vote and the citizenship requirement. And I'm open to hearing it. I am pro PR voting in municipal elections, and pro making it easier to become a citizen, and I am feeling like people are reading my arguments as xenophobic and anti-immigrant.
posted by beau jackson at 3:57 PM on July 30, 2015 [1 favorite]

The PR is already a citizen of their home country...

Don't be so certain -- there are more than 10 million people in the world who are not citizens of any country.
posted by Etrigan at 4:00 PM on July 30, 2015

Yeah, but then that PR doesn't have to sacrifice a citizenship to acquire Canadian citizenship which was what I was responding to.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 4:05 PM on July 30, 2015

This still smacks to me of "I know nothing about any other individual's personal circumstance in this country but me and mine, but obviously they don't care enough about Canada to be Canadian citizens." Easier to immigrate to than other countries? Probably, but it seems it's easier if you're white.

The requirement of citizenship as a necessary condition to vote in a country is pretty much universal. The pathway to citizenship in Canada, from acquiring permanent residence and immigrating onwards is more open then just about any other country in the world. It was better before the HarperCons took power, but it is still pretty good. Hopefully it'll improve under a new prime minister in the fall. Your Canadian counterpart trying to become an American citizen has a lot longer to go than you trying to become a Canadian citizen. But fine, say we accept there are good reasons for not becoming Canadian but still being able to vote in Canada. What should then be the criteria for determining who can vote?

I'll let a white person speak to the "easier if you're white" part of your comment.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 4:56 PM on July 30, 2015

I'll let a white person speak to the "easier if you're white" part of your comment.

Being a white person who still had a hard time getting my PR, I can do that for myself, thanks.
posted by Kitteh at 5:06 PM on July 30, 2015

Canada claims the power to prosecute it's citizens for Canadian crimes they commit in other countries. That alone should entitle ex-pats to vote.
posted by Mitheral at 7:21 PM on July 30, 2015 [6 favorites]

He needs some sort of sign or salute for expats to rally behind.

You know, if you hold up three fingers it kinda looks like a maple leaf.

i just wanna see him do it once
posted by obiwanwasabi at 10:04 PM on July 30, 2015

What's the difference between voting in municipal elections (in the municipality where one lives, on issues that affect one) and voting in Federal elections (in the country where one lives, one issues that affect one)?

More specifically, what is it about local issues that makes it reasonable for "newly-arrived" PR to be able to influence them by voting, compared to Federal issues?

My overall complaint is that residence is a measurable indicator of a relationship between a person and a state, with actual practical consequences for both parties. The difference between PR and citizenship involves a bunch of nebulous or archaic stuff of the type embodied in things like citizenship oaths (which, incidentally, natural-born citizens of non-autocratic countries do not have to take, while naturalized citizens often do). Since, civic religion aside, voting is really about having some voice in one's relationship with the state to whose jurisdiction one is subject, which relationship affects practical matters for both the individual and the state, I don't see why the existence of that relationship is not automatically sufficient to entitle one to vote.

The state's proper function is, broadly, to provide a mechanism whereby people pool resources (money and time) in order to accomplish various socially useful purposes (healthcare, garbage collection, a legal system, etc.). Accordingly, the adult parts -- as opposed to the superstitious parts -- of one's relationship with the state include things like taxes and social services, but exclude most cultural things or "ties to the country" or "national identity" or whatever irrelevant thing, about which the state is supposed to be neutral except to the extent that those things affect the practicalities of the relationship between a state and an individual (pretty much just linguistic skills and bureaucratic-navigation skills and rudimentary legal knowledge, for which I think the state is within its rights to test applicants for residence). Therefore, I don't see why a PR doesn't have a fully-fledged relationship with the state warranting the right to a say in how that relationship is conducted.
posted by busted_crayons at 2:55 AM on July 31, 2015 [1 favorite]

I can appreciate that those you know who became PRs were already living in Canada for years, but many if not most immigrants do indeed arrive in Canada on their first day as a PR. The question is, are you comfortable with a practical stranger taking part in decision making regarding Federal matters like participating in wars? Is it really that unreasonable that in order to participate in big decisions affecting the future of the country that a person has to live here for a while? (again, I'm not saying that all PRs are "practical strangers", I'm just pointing out a consequence of letting PRs vote).

It seems like your argument that immigrants should be given citizenship upon arrival. Or is it? I'm having difficulty with this discussion because I'm not clear on exactly what you're advocating.
posted by beau jackson at 6:30 AM on July 31, 2015

but many if not most immigrants do indeed arrive in Canada on their first day as a PR.

Do they? I was a landed immigrant when I arrived here. I was allowed to stay in Canada on a temporary visa while my application was being processed because I married a Canadian. I didn't become a Permanent Resident until after nearly two years of waiting to see if I would be approved or not. (After all the money and hoops you have to jump through there is no guarantee.) I had to go to NYC to the Consulate for my interview. (Which was a PITA because I was unable to work so I had to rely on my husband being able to take leave of his job to accompany me.) We could have tried having me apply while I was still living in the US but the wait times were insanely long, I had just lost my job, and so we took a risk that the border agency would let me pass through by applying for a temp visa right then and there. There is so much money involved in getting a visa, your PR, and even citizenship, that it is something you really have to think about. I am a cis white-identified woman who could afford it (but only then because my husband paid for it as I had no money) and I want to apply for dual citizenship but that is also more money and more time. The sort of casual dismissal that I see in this thread that PRs really cared about this country we'd become citizens doesn't see the forest for the trees. Imagine someone coming from a country who doesn't have that money and that time. They have scraped by just enough to get here if they're lucky to be a PR but cannot afford to be a citizen even if they want to. Don't their voices matter? Or they just not Canadian enough?

One of my biggest sorrows is seeing a country like Canada morph into the US under Harper. Sowing fear, isolation, and distrust of foreigners.
posted by Kitteh at 6:40 AM on July 31, 2015 [3 favorites]

Supporting Kitteh here. Having also spoken to some academics in Canada, the difficulty in getting PR even for educated white Americans is much, much higher than it used to be. I think a lot of Canadians remember a time when things were different and because it hasn't been really advertised or remarked upon, no one knew it had changed so much until suddenly they speak to people who inform them otherwise.
posted by jeather at 6:52 AM on July 31, 2015

Do they?

Yes, many do arrive as PRs, including many spousal applications who can't get temp visas (from Cuba, China, India etc...), economic class, investors, group-sponsored refugees etc... This might all be changing with the new Express Entry system, I don't know. I can't find a source but I just spoke to a settlement worker I know who estimated that like 80% or more make the application from outside the country. My apologies that I can't find a statistic. It might be that case that most Americans who immigrant are in Canada first, with a spouse or working visa etc...

Just to be clear- we're talking about voting rights, not who should be welcome and supported and cherish in this country. Not who is "Canadian" enough to be allowed to participate in society in general or have any voice whatsoever. In my personal life I'm involved in supporting newcomers and people with no legal status who are fighting to be able to stay, or simply working and living. I'm not saying that the immigration system as a whole is fair. I've gone to great lengths to explain that I think it should be easier to become a citizen and that I'm open to some voting rights for PRs in the meantime.

I am basically making one argument, that an PR should not be able to vote on their first day in Canada, that I feel is being interpreted uncharitable as meaning that I think all PRs are unfit to vote and that they're not invested in living in and contributing to Canada.

Maybe there is a better way and I don't see it- but I'm not being offered any other ideas. I would have really liked to have heard other real ideas about structuring voter eligibilty and allowing non-citizens to vote. Anyway I think I've said my piece so I don't need to go on. Thanks everyone.
posted by beau jackson at 7:20 AM on July 31, 2015 [1 favorite]

beau jackson: "I can appreciate that those you know who became PRs were already living in Canada for years, but many if not most immigrants do indeed arrive in Canada on their first day as a PR. The question is, are you comfortable with a practical stranger taking part in decision making regarding Federal matters like participating in wars?"

beau jackson: "I am basically making one argument, that an PR should not be able to vote on their first day in Canada"

It seems, then, that your argument is really about people new to Canada, not about PRs. If you are against PRs who haven't lived in Canada voting, but you're not against PRs who've been in Canada for a long time voting, then the PR section seems like just an extraneous factor. Might as well say "I am basically making one argument, that left-handed people should not be able to vote on their first day in Canada" or "I am basically making one argument, that people who are good at pole vaulting should not be able to vote on their first day in Canada".
posted by Bugbread at 8:12 AM on July 31, 2015

Kitteh: I don't mean to sound like I know your situation better than you do, so I'm sorry, but when you said you arrived as a landed immigrant and took time to become a permanent resident, this surprised me because I thought "landed immigrant" and "permanent resident" were the same thing. My parents arrived as landed immigrants many many years ago and were such until they naturalized. But that was many years ago, so who knows, stuff changes (as exemplified by my being wrong about how voting works because it's changed since I lived abroad).

So I googled it and it looks like landed immigrant and permanent resident ARE the same. Landed immigrant is just the older name for the same status. Is it possibly you changed from "landed immigrant" to "permanent resident" not because you finally achieved a new status, but because you kept the same status but the name changed?
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 9:15 AM on July 31, 2015

the current government keeps making it fucking hard for people to become citizens.

I hear you. We've got a bunch of folks in the same boat at work. They should just bring back the three-year rule. I don't see how the current system helps at all, and it's way, way more complicated and expensive than it used to be. I was trying to figure out the fee schedule the other day to help one of my friends out, and it was like groping through a dark forest.
posted by bonehead at 9:16 AM on July 31, 2015

Yes, many do arrive as PRs, including many spousal applications who can't get temp visas (from Cuba, China, India etc...), economic class, investors, group-sponsored refugees etc... This might all be changing with the new Express Entry system, I don't know.

I won't say that I have a huge amount of experience with this, but we've had a dozen or more cases at work that I have had personal knowledge of (China, India, Iran). In almost every case the family has come over on some variety of visa (student or work), sometimes transmuted to another type (student or tourist to work, typically), then converted to a PR in country. This usually means a bunch of trips back and forth to the US to get the paper-work done, time away from work and a great deal of additional expenses to the people involved.
posted by bonehead at 9:23 AM on July 31, 2015 [1 favorite]

Is it possibly you changed from "landed immigrant" to "permanent resident" not because you finally achieved a new status, but because you kept the same status but the name changed?

When I finally got my PR card, I still had to drive out of Canada and then drive back in at Stanstead. I do not recall them stamping "landed immigrant" in my passport. I had to keep my temporary residence visa in my passport at all times that way I could be admitted back into Canada if I left. Again, my husband and I took the chance that I would actually be admitted in the country for any length of time at all when I arrived. We couldn't even rely on proof of my application being processed because Citizenship and Immigration lost a HUGE chunk of my paperwork (which we didn't find out about until after I was in Quebec). They apologized but still made us pay for the processing again. I cannot stress enough that I am lucky, if not pissed off, to have been able to pay to start the whole thing over again when I did. I cannot imagine for someone in less than comfortable circumstances to undergo that.
posted by Kitteh at 10:21 AM on July 31, 2015

Canada claims the power to prosecute it's citizens for Canadian crimes they commit in other countries. That alone should entitle ex-pats to vote.

Not my area of expertise but from my understanding, Canadian criminal law only applies to Canadians outside of Canada for specific offences (bribery, terrorism, sex with minors, and others).

The sort of casual dismissal that I see in this thread that PRs really cared about this country we'd become citizens doesn't see the forest for the trees. Imagine someone coming from a country who doesn't have that money and that time. They have scraped by just enough to get here if they're lucky to be a PR but cannot afford to be a citizen even if they want to. Don't their voices matter? Or they just not Canadian enough?

If the fees are what is stopping PR holders from becoming citizens then we should scrap the fees or at least waive them for people below a certain income threshold because that is unfair.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 10:35 AM on July 31, 2015 [1 favorite]

The pathway to citizenship in Canada, from acquiring permanent residence and immigrating onwards is more open then just about any other country in the world. It was better before the HarperCons took power, but it is still pretty good.

Thus speaks someone who hasn't tried to become a Canadian citizen. A close friend of mine met a lovely Australian man on a year abroad, they fell in love and moved back here.

Four years later they are still in bureaucratic hell. It's not, by any stretch of the imagination, 'pretty good.'
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 4:28 PM on July 31, 2015 [2 favorites]

any portmanteau in a storm: "Canadian criminal law only applies to Canadians outside of Canada for specific offences (bribery, terrorism, sex with minors, and others)."

Sure, they only bother with some big stuff. Canada still claims that power.
posted by Mitheral at 5:48 PM on July 31, 2015 [2 favorites]

Canada still claims that power.

It's been a long time since I did my crim bar exam, but I remember being struck by the fact that the Criminal Code was applicable to the International Space Station. Not that applicability to the ISS is itself unreasonable, but that someone made it a legislative priority to get it written up in the Code.

But I still can't see Chris Hadfield getting up to some naughty stuff up there. Dude was busy.
posted by Capt. Renault at 6:41 PM on July 31, 2015 [1 favorite]

A thought about PRs and voting: I'm a born Canadian. Nonetheless, it took me 18 years to gain the right to vote. Perhaps it isn't unfair for PRs to not have voting rights until some time has passed.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:40 PM on July 31, 2015 [2 favorites]

The requirement of citizenship as a necessary condition to vote in a country is pretty much universal.

Permanent residency is sufficient in New Zealand.
posted by lollusc at 4:04 AM on August 1, 2015 [2 favorites]

I wonder what class of Canadian citizens will be targeted next to lose the vote?
posted by Poldo at 10:46 PM on August 1, 2015

Betcha it'll be economic. Perhaps those on social assistance, or in custody, or both.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:00 PM on August 2, 2015 [1 favorite]

Without a doubt, the moment he can prevent cons and ex-cons from voting, he will. Harper has a hard-on for punishing those who break the law.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:46 PM on August 2, 2015

Stephen Harper, Serial Abuser of Power: The Evidence
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:05 PM on August 4, 2015 [3 favorites]

« Older "Perhaps the most difficult part is keeping a... | Our neighbour Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

MetaFilter

“...the Canada you once knew and were so proud of, is no longer Canada.”
July 29, 2015 9:28 AM Subscribe

Tags

Share

“...the Canada you once knew and were so proud of, is no longer Canada.” July 29, 2015 9:28 AM Subscribe

Tags

Share

“...the Canada you once knew and were so proud of, is no longer Canada.”
July 29, 2015 9:28 AM Subscribe