Permanent Resident Voting: A Movement on the Rise – But does it make sense?

I am not a fan of allowing Permanent Residents to vote although I understand the rationale of supporters.

We have enough problems encouraging citizens to vote and it remains to be seen whether Permanent Residents would have significantly greater interest in voting.

More significantly, there are relatively few differences between citizens and Permanent Residents in terms of rights, social programs and other benefits (and responsibilities) and to a certain extent, if Permanent Residents can vote, this may reduce the incentive to become citizens.

Of course, in the context of the new citizenship act making citizenship harder to acquire, this may increase pressure to allow municipal voting. The old argument about Canadian citizenship being relatively easy to acquire in a relatively short period of time applies less and less:

Finally, we must connect with and support groups who are currently engaging other critical advocacy for newcomers. Earlier this year, the city of Hamilton proclaimed itself a sanctuary city – in other words, the city committed to ensure that every resident, regardless of immigration status, has access to city services. It is no coincidence that a similar proclamation in Toronto preceded the successful motion on permanent resident voting. City Vote must situate itself within the broader movement to ensure newcomers have equal rights and opportunities in Canada.

Thankfully, the campaign has a history of strong partnerships within this larger newcomer-serving community. Thorncliffe Neighbourhood Office, a multi-service community hub in central Toronto, incubated the campaign in 2008 and helped it grow. Maytree has been supporting policy development and hosting forums on the issue since 2007. Groups as large as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and as small as warden Woods Community Centre have offered their time, energy and support. The foundation for growth is solid and diverse.

Permanent Resident Voting: A Movement on the Rise.

Victoria Ferauge: Expatriate Voting: Engagement or Illusion?

Further to Canadian expatriates should never lose the right to vote, an effective rebuttal by Victoria Ferauge (an American expat):

Americans abroad are a fraction of the population of the homeland:  7 million versus 300 million.  Canadians abroad are 2.9 million versus 35 million – a higher percentage which might or might not make a difference.  How many of those 2.9 million expats  who were within the 5 year limit now defunct bothered to register?  No idea, I could not find any statistics.  The argument in the Global and Mail editorial would have been so much more compelling if there was hard evidence that Canadians abroad were clamouring for the vote.

Sevi argues that “Canada needs to take a proactive approach to engage Canadians living abroad.”  I would say from my own experience that if expatriate voting rights equal responsibility without power or effective representation, then it is clearly NOT the best way to engage that country’s expatriate community.  If the franchise is simply a symbolic gesture to show how very hip and global a country is or an excuse to extract money/support from them, then it isn’t for the expats at all – it’s all about the homelands self-image and self-interest – and that is a terrible place to begin a  dialogue with ones diaspora.

The Franco-American Flophouse: Expatriate Voting: Engagement or Illusion?.

Canadian expatriates should never lose the right to vote

The problem with Semra Sevi’s argumentation like that of others is that it relies on anecdotes and generalizations:

Canadians abroad are connected to global networks that Canada can benefit from. Instead of using derogative labels like “Canadians of convenience” or “Foreigners holding Canadian passports,” Canada needs to take a proactive approach to engage Canadians living abroad. People have many different reasons for moving away, and to label them as less Canadian for doing so is troublesome. There are many cases of Canadians studying in the United States who find work in the United Kingdom before coming back to Canada a decade later yet under the current system they would be disenfranchised after five years. Many of these Canadians working abroad do so for Canadian companies, yet these businesses are not facing the same dilemma as Canadians abroad.

Immigrants who decide to leave Canada for whatever reason and return to their native countries are not less Canadian as their compatriots who live in Canada. They may not be residing in the country but they are nevertheless subject to Canadian law and foreign policy decisions. Many of them actively retain connections to Canada. Questions like are expatriates “real” Canadians, is unconstitutional and un-Canadian in themselves. Canadians living abroad are significant global assets who deserve the same rights as those living in Canada. The world is as interconnected as ever, and is only becoming more so. Isolating citizens based on their current geographic placement, which is based on many factors, runs counter to the way the world operates in the twenty-first century.

The reality if varies by community, it varies by individual, and it varies by country of residence. My anecdotal experience with Canadian expatriates when I worked in the foreign service was mixed; some maintained a strong ongoing connection, others did not.

We do not have enough survey and other information to know, beyond the usual anecdotes, how many expatriates have a meaningful ongoing connection to Canada.

Generally speaking, the longer the time outside of Canada, the looser the bond as family, work and local connections become more meaningful.

I suspect if we applied the US approach of taxation based on citizenship, some of the enthusiasm for unlimited voting rights (no representation without taxation) would decrease.

Canadian expatriates should never lose the right to vote – The Globe and Mail.

Should non-resident Canadians get the vote? – Globe Editorial

Globe has it basically right:

In a procedural decision in this case this week, Justice Robert Sharpe of the Ontario Court of Appeal, put the issue clearly: Is the five-year limit “necessary to sustain our geographically determined, constituency-based system of representation?” The highest court will eventually have to answer that question. We think it can reasonably answer “yes.”

Parliament, especially the Commons, since its beginnings in medieval England, has been a body that consents to – or rejects – taxes. But Canadian expatriates pay their taxes in the country where they live, and receive the benefits of government there, too. They do not pay taxes here, or receive most public services. It is reasonable for the law to say that, if you live outside Canada for a sufficiently long time, after some number of years you can no longer exercise the right to vote for members of the House of Commons. You do not lose Canadian citizenship – that can never be taken away. And no matter how long someone lives abroad, they have the absolute right to return to Canada whenever they wish.

The five-year limit is not strictly necessary. But there’s a compelling logic to placing some limit on how long one can live abroad and still vote in Canada. It makes it more likely that Canadian voters will have a strong, living connection to Canada.

Should non-resident Canadians get the vote? – The Globe and Mail.

Tim Harper in the Star takes the contrary view:

The numbers may not be huge, but the symbolism from this government is massive.

The Canadian diaspora numbers about 2.8 million and has been called the “missing province.”

About a million of them have been out of the country for more than five years; most of them live in the U.S.

About seven in 10 expats, according to a 2009 study by the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada, said they intended to return home. Two out of three left the country for work reasons and one in three worked for a Canadian company, the government or a Canadian non-governmental agency.

Non-resident Canadians paid about $6 billion in taxes to the Canadian treasury in 2008-09, according to the APF study.

The five-year cutoff is a product of the 1993 Progressive Conservative majority government which for the first time provided a mechanism for Canadians living outside the country to vote.

In 2005, following a recommendation by then-Elections Canada chief John-Pierre Kingsley, a parliamentary committee recommended the five-year limit be removed. All four party leaders endorsed the committee decision. Nothing ever happened….

Suppressing vote of expats latest Conservative court battle: Tim Harper

Expat voting: Court denies Ottawas fight for 5-year rule for voters abroad

While the Government failed to get a stay for the by-elections this coming Monday, expect that the Government will make a formal appeal of the earlier decision removing the five-year limit for the 2015 elections (see earlier Expat voters launch legal challenge of ‘5-year rule’):

In Mondays ruling denying the federal governments request of a stay, Justice Robert Sharpe wrote that while there was “an arguable appeal” from the Attorney General of Canada, “the balance of convenience weights in favour of refusing a stay.”

Sharpe dismissed the government’s argument that it could cause “irreparable harm” if a close election came down to the single vote of a non-resident who, it might turn out, was ineligible to vote. But such a scenario would be “fairly remote,” Sharpe said.

He also reasoned that Elections Canada had already taken administrative steps to allow citizens abroad to vote after the lower court ruling, and it was counterproductive to “undo what [Elections Canada] has already done.”

Only 13 Canadian ex-pats have so far registered to vote since the May decision.

Even so, Sharpe wrote today: “To grant a stay in this case would require Elections Canada to rescind the registrations of up to 13 non-resident electors and claw back the vote of citizens who may well in the end have the right to cast their ballot.”

Expat voting: Court denies Ottawas fight for 5-year rule for voters abroad – Politics – CBC News.

Ottawa to appeal expat voting rights decision

Further to the Court case on ex-pat voting (Voting rights restored to Canadians living abroad long-term), the Government will appeal the decision as expected:

“Non-residents should have a direct and meaningful connection to Canada and to their ridings in order to vote in federal elections,” Pierre Poilievre, minister of state responsible for democratic reform, said in a statement.

“For over two decades, Canada’s policy has limited to five years the length of time someone can be abroad and still vote. That is fair and reasonable.”

Feds appeal decision granting long-term expatriate Canadians voting rights

Voting rights restored to Canadians living abroad long-term

I expect the Government to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court, as it would be consistent with their overall approach to citizenship, anchored more to residency and connection to Canada:

“The [government] essentially argues that allowing non-residents to vote is unfair to resident Canadians because resident Canadians live here and are, on a day-to-day basis, subject to Canada’s laws and live with the consequences of Parliament’s decisions,” Penny wrote.

“I do not find this argument persuasive.”

For one thing, Penny ruled, expats may well be subject to Canadian tax and other laws.

The government, the judge found, had decided some citizens are “not worthy” to vote despite their constitutional right to do so.

“This is not the lawmakers’ decision to make — the Charter makes this decision for us,” Penny wrote.

Expatriate Canadians may or may not follow Canadian issues closely, the vast majority pay no Canadian taxes, mainly follow country of residence laws, and other connections to Canada diminish over time. The five-year rule was a way to capture that reality in one that can be implemented and less subject to interpretation.

Voting rights restored to Canadians living abroad long-term – Politics – CBC News.

Law that strips certain Canadian expats of voting rights to be debated in court

One point the plaintiffs are silent on is that they do not pay taxes. Would they prefer the US system, with expatriates required to file tax returns (and get tied up with the IRS under the US FATCA revenue “grab” from expatriates)?

Yes, one can follow Canadian politics and life from afar, one can maintain family and friends, but I fail to see how voting is an absolute right applying to long-term expatriates. But we will see how the courts decide.  The below seems to be wanting to have your cake and eating it too:

“With globalization what we have is this increased movement. And a lot of the reason that Canadians move outside the country is for employment,” she said. “It’s not appropriate to say that in order to exercise your full fundamental democratic rights you have to curtail your employment.”

The case had led to a number of expatriate Canadians coming forward with concerns similar to Frank and Duong’s, said O’Brien.

“If people feel that strongly about Canada and wanting to vote…why would we not want to have their participation in the country,” she said. “Why would we want to limit such a fundamental democratic right that people hold so deeply.”

Law that strips certain Canadian expats of voting rights to be debated in court.