No Votes For Long-term Non-residents
- Thread starter SkyRider
- Start date
If they don't live here, it's pointless.
I personally agree with the ruling. What is the point of allowing a citizen, who chooses to live in another country (therefore abiding by the laws in legislation of SAID country) get to decide how things are governed here, if they aren't affected?
It's an invisible vote.
That's like allowing people who've relocated to Vancouver, to still be able to vote for the Mayor of Toronto...disregard the technicality of Toronto property owners.
I personally agree with the ruling. What is the point of allowing a citizen, who chooses to live in another country (therefore abiding by the laws in legislation of SAID country) get to decide how things are governed here, if they aren't affected?
It's an invisible vote.
That's like allowing people who've relocated to Vancouver, to still be able to vote for the Mayor of Toronto...disregard the technicality of Toronto property owners.
That's bullshit... expats still have to pay Canadian taxes, but they aren't allowed to vote now?
Pathetic.
No... legally they are required to IF they maintain residency
A non resident is still a citizen and pays no taxes (thats without even getting into how to cheat)
The people losing votes are those who have been abroad for years and probably never coming back
If you are receiving income from a Canadian source, you are paying Canadian taxes.
So, basically... I can work all my life in Canada, get a Canadian pension and OAS, move elsewhere, still pay Canadian taxes, but not be able to vote. Like I said... bullshit.
If you decide to leave, you shouldn't be able to choose who governs the next few years. Simple as that.
If you receive CANADIAN income which is taxed, might be unfortunate but is still just, in my eyes. Getting taxed does not directly award you the privilege of voting if you aren't here to experience them implemented first hand.
What is the point? So you can discuss who you voted for over tea on a beach half across the world?
If I contribute to the Canadian government financially, why shouldn't I be able to (as a Canadian Citizen) have input regarding how that money is spent?
As long as you are physically (and by this I mean, living IN Canada) able to reap the benefits or experience the shortfalls, no. I believe you no longer carry that right. You lose that right the minute you decide to permanently seek board in another country with a completely new set of rules to abide by.
There is absolutely no sensible reason to be allowed to vote if you aren't living in said country. Arguing that you should be awarded that privilege is wrong simply because you aren't able to put the vote to good use.
This is like when people decide to rebuke Canada because of their unfortunate circumstances and experiences, move away to a country with civil unrest and rebellion and want to claim Canadian citizenship thereafter. You can't pick and choose which country you pledge allegiance to, nor should you continue to reap the benefits and privileges awarded to citizens if you decide to leave for what you consider to be greener pastures.
You simply shouldn't have it both ways.
Then by your logic, there is absolutely no sensible reason to be required to pay taxes if you aren't living in said country.
Arguing that you should be given that responsibility is wrong simply because you aren't able to benefit from those taxes paid.
I don't have expertise nor a well-versed knowledge when it comes to tax laws and Canadian pension plans, but my thoughts are that if you are receiving a Canadian-based income, it is taxed.
Are pensions taxed? If they are, then it still makes sense to me, as you accumulated that revenue in a tax-based nation and should continue to see said funds taxed.
It still doesn't give a person the right to say, "Well if I'm getting taxed, I want to be able to decide who governs Canada!"...even though you are completely unaffected by the laws of nation.
You vote a person to represent a group of people. By this logic, an ex-pat is not technically part of this group any longer.
So you are paying tax to the Canadian government, but your right as a citizen to have a say in how that money is spent is taken away? Can you please explain that logic to me?
Once again...if you are not physically able to reap the benefits, you shouldn't have a say.
YOU decided to leave. So you shouldn't have a say in how things are spent or how a country is governed.
I've explained my thoughts. Multiple times. Not about to argue on my opinion or reiterate my thoughts or logic any longer.
Good night.
So you 'decided to leave', so your opinion is worthless, but your money is still good?
In case you weren't aware... just because you aren't physically in Canada, doesn't mean you don't 'reap the benefits' of being a Canadian.
There is a segment of the political class that does not like the Charter and will do anything to weaken it. The court's ruling is a mistake. A right to vote by a citizen is a fundamental and a basic right. I think the judges got caught up in the details and lost the sight of the big picture. I hope this gets overturned along with the C-24.
As dual citizen (France/Canada) I can vote for French President, international MP reps and referendum. I do not pay French taxes and I have to register with the consulate or embassy if I want to vote. The president is direct vote and so is a referendum, so my residency is irrelevant. The international MP were created for expats and are grouped in regions.
If I were to not reside in Canada, I am not sure which election would make sense. No MP or MPP to vote for since there are no international MPs. No president or PM to vote for (since we vote for our MP). Therefore non-residents (registered to vote) should only be able to vote for federal referendums.
I don't get the 5 year rule. Makes no sense to me. It should be you are a resident or not.
If I were to not reside in Canada, I am not sure which election would make sense. No MP or MPP to vote for since there are no international MPs. No president or PM to vote for (since we vote for our MP). Therefore non-residents (registered to vote) should only be able to vote for federal referendums.
I don't get the 5 year rule. Makes no sense to me. It should be you are a resident or not.
Couple of things.
5 year rule is probably designed for those in international business who may end up at a branch office for a couple of years on the way up the corporate ladder. Other examples can be diplomats, armed forces, non profit charities who work overseas etc. They have the intention of returning but are temporarily away.
As for whether those who leave permanently should have a vote I take this tack. As they are no longer net contributors to the economy in their spending and no longer care to stay here then they have chosen to give up their vote.
That they choose to retain their citizenship for purposes of pensions and or as an anchor if living somewhere where civil unrest could force their return I consider any taxes they may have to pay a fee for continuing to have the option of return.
That some nations have international reps is irrelevant. They are mainly intended for former colonies and still claimed places(think the Falkland Islands or the French one off the coast of Canada).
I will say this as well. I wouldn't have a issue with adding a couple of international MP's as an option, I believe about 400,000 possible votes are affected so that number would be fine. But remember under our system you vote for some to represent the riding where you LIVE. Someone not living in the riding shouldn't have a say who gets to represent it.
5 year rule is probably designed for those in international business who may end up at a branch office for a couple of years on the way up the corporate ladder. Other examples can be diplomats, armed forces, non profit charities who work overseas etc. They have the intention of returning but are temporarily away.
As for whether those who leave permanently should have a vote I take this tack. As they are no longer net contributors to the economy in their spending and no longer care to stay here then they have chosen to give up their vote.
That they choose to retain their citizenship for purposes of pensions and or as an anchor if living somewhere where civil unrest could force their return I consider any taxes they may have to pay a fee for continuing to have the option of return.
That some nations have international reps is irrelevant. They are mainly intended for former colonies and still claimed places(think the Falkland Islands or the French one off the coast of Canada).
I will say this as well. I wouldn't have a issue with adding a couple of international MP's as an option, I believe about 400,000 possible votes are affected so that number would be fine. But remember under our system you vote for some to represent the riding where you LIVE. Someone not living in the riding shouldn't have a say who gets to represent it.
Have to say I agree with Chloe on this. It's not clear cut, but it seems to me the logic of the situation is more on her side than yours. Do you really not see and understand the other point of view? It's alright to have differing opinions, but you're so vehement in your opposition I'm not sure you see the other side of things.
In fact 'maintaining residency' was precisely what the case hinged on. The decision that was overturned had said that return visits were enough to 'maintain residency' and the right to vote. This decision said the opposite, and that 'real' residency had to be re-established.
It may be simply a technicality, but Canadian citizens only vote for the MP who will represent the riding in which they are resident. They don't have any other sort of federal voting rights. So I can see the logic underlying the view that after five years away, without maintaining a real connection through actually living there (however briefly), your right to vote in that riding should be nullified until you take up residence once more.
Of course, if we voted for our choice of governing party and PM, that logic wouldn't hold.
