No Votes For Long-term Non-residents

[IM469]

First of all, not a fan of Harper but this was originally created by the Liberals back in 93 if you want to blame someone.

Secondly, it does not discriminate based on socio-economic status, tax contribution or any other basis. It is based on a choice that you personally make, to permanently leave the country or for more than 5 years.

I wasn't referring to this decision - I was giving examples of Harper decisions that affect fundamental human rights and have no affect on the uses of taxes. I was suggesting that the Canadian government can make decisions that affect every Canadian and your right to vote is important and should not be affected by any government no matter what the political stripe.

You cannot arbitrarily throw limits on Canadian activities that will affect their Canadian citizenship. It is dangerous and could lead to other restrictions based on religion, driving record, ... just about any whim that could reflect a popular discrimination or win you the next election. What I think you should realise is that once you establish a precedent in limiting a Canadian citizen's rights - no matter how justified the restriction is in your mind - you have now opened up a can of worms that allows everyone to jam their little preferences for Canadian behavior to qualify as a Canadian citizen.

Also - the attitude that people made the decision voluntarily to leave so 'piss on them' - is again an arbitrary personal decision by you on other Canadians rights. Why 5 years ... why not 15 minutes ? You cross the border to visit Buffalo willingly - now we don't allow you back in. You left willingly. Seem extreme ??? That is the test on logic you are supporting.

If you loose your OHIP by being out of province for 6+ months, I think loosing the right to vote after being away for 5+ years is fair.

Absolutely irrelevant in this argument. OHIP is a health insurance plan backed by the government. When you are no longer paying premiums in to the plan (identical to private insurance plans) then you are no longer eligible to the benefits.

Wow! That means a Canadian who leaves Canada to join ISIS in Syria and vows to attack Canada can still vote in a federal election. Amazing!

Do you mean the ISIS patch has more relevance than any other Canadian engaged in murder, rape or robbery in Canada ?? Your example has a great many assumptions and holes in the logic. First - do you expect a polling station to be set up in ISIS headquarters ?? Second, without a formal trial and conviction - how do you know the individual is a volunteer and not necessarily a prisoner of ISIS ?

A Canadian cannot loose his Canadian citizenship unless he appears in front of a Canadian official and renounces his citizenship. This is to stop people from being kidnapped or forced under duress to renounce their citizenship. This is because Canadian citizenship is a right that we value highly and should not be frivolously tossed or devalued because a certain group has a gripe or political agenda.

 

[fuji]

If he or she has moved away and has been gone for 5+ years, then they have in all likelihood left Canada for good.

So you are taking away people's right to vote on a likelihood? Should other factors that would influence the probabilities be considered? What about someone who has family in Canada and owns property, dues that change the likelihood in any way?

I don't want someone who is "Canadian" part-time, or became a citizen as an exit strategy for when things got a little hot "AT HOME", to have a say in the future of this country by letting them vote.

I live outside Canada but I am not a part time Canadian. I didn't cease being Canadian when I crossed the border and I have no other citizenship besides Canadian.

What does that do to the likelihood?

 

[SkyRider]

how do you know the individual is a volunteer and not necessarily a prisoner of ISIS ?

Is the guy in this video an ISIS prisoner?

 

[Babypowder]

this is a great idea. too bad it goes against the charter

 

[basketcase]

This decisions is technically correct based on our system.

As mentioned, our system is entirely constructed so that we vote for someone that represents the people of their riding; more accurately the people who's primary residence is in the riding. If you don't have a primary residence in Canada, there is no one for you to vote for.

It does seem like a violation of rights but it would require a change to our system to be able to accommodate it. The international MP is an interesting idea but the countries that have done it tend to be countries where there is a large ex-pat population and I don't know if that would suit Canada (and I don''t know if there are enough ex-pats to justify an MP).

 

[basketcase]

So you are taking away people's right to vote on a likelihood? Should other factors that would influence the probabilities be considered? What about someone who has family in Canada and owns property, dues that change the likelihood in any way?...

No, just taking away your rights until you once again choose to establish your primary residence in Canada.

 

[destillat]

No, just taking away your rights until you once again choose to establish your primary residence in Canada.

So I have to sit back and watch my country go to shit because I cannot vote while I choose to spend a few years outside of my country?
Then I come back and have to deal with the fallout of not being able to have my say?

 

[Butler1000]

It happens already in Britain, Australia, and New Zealand. And has to do with using the West Minister Parliament style.

As stated above you vote in your riding. After 5 years it's safe to presume you have moved out of it. A student would have to change address. It's pretty simple. If you have a stake in the country then come live in it. Leaving for retirement means you want to finish your life elsewhere. Enjoy yourself, but you don't have a stake. Leaving because we don't make you enough money? Go enjoy your economic activity which you are placing above all else. I have no issue with temporary stops to improve yourself(whether it's a high flying V.P. Or a volunteer worker). But come home at some point. Is it really so onerous?

As for the slippery slope argument. Nope. Used in the past for other things that worked out just fine. This will too.

Better yet just add two more seats in Parliament the next election for these people. Let's see how many actually bother to vote.

 

[red]

Canadians living abroad vote based on their last address in canada

This decisions is technically correct based on our system.

As mentioned, our system is entirely constructed so that we vote for someone that represents the people of their riding; more accurately the people who's primary residence is in the riding. If you don't have a primary residence in Canada, there is no one for you to vote for.

It does seem like a violation of rights but it would require a change to our system to be able to accommodate it. The international MP is an interesting idea but the countries that have done it tend to be countries where there is a large ex-pat population and I don't know if that would suit Canada (and I don''t know if there are enough ex-pats to justify an MP).

There is a system in place already

 

[basketcase]

So I have to sit back and watch my country go to shit because I cannot vote while I choose to spend a few years outside of my country?
Then I come back and have to deal with the fallout of not being able to have my say?

Yes, unless you can get the country to agree to a voting system not based on the location of your primary residence.

 

[basketcase]

There is a system in place already

Interesting. It does seem pretty focused on Canadians who are temporarily living outside Canada, not Canadians who have left.

Under the Canada Elections Act, electors whose home is outside Canada and who live abroad for five consecutive years or more cannot be included in the International Register of Electors and cannot vote by special ballot.

There are some exceptions to this five-year limit. If you meet one of these criteria, you are exempt from the five-year limit:

You are an employee of a federal or provincial public administration posted outside Canada, or you live with someone who is. –or –
You are an employee, posted outside Canada, of an international organization of which Canada is a member and to which Canada contributes, or you live with someone who is. –or –
You live with a member of the Canadian Forces posted outside Canada, or with a civilian employed outside Canada as a teacher or as administrative support staff in a Canadian Forces school.
http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=reg/svr&document=page-i&lang=e


There does seem to be a way for the non-residents to vote in person in Canada though.
.

 

[IM469]

Is the guy in this video an ISIS prisoner?

I don't know - I am not a self appointed judge and jury.

 

[fuji]

There does seem to be a way for the non-residents to vote in person in Canada though.
.

What way?

 

[TeeJay]

If you are receiving income from a Canadian source, you are paying Canadian taxes.

This is not true either... your anger is really being misplaced by your ignorance on this topic

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.

No different than if you leave province you give up your health care (OHIP)
Although in your example its pretty dumb to give up free health care at end of your life

 

[TeeJay]

Voting is a right and not a privilege.

Being a Canadian citizen means you have certain rights, including voting, no matter where you are.

If a Canadian served in the armed forces, fought for this country, worked and lived in canada for 65 years and then retired to a warmer climate- you would take that veterans vote away from him? Shame on you

Another grade A moron
History lesson for you:
The "right to vote" never existed before 1982
So by your logic of a vet who lived in Canada for 65 years and fought in any war then left Canada would never have had that right

 

[TeeJay]

If I decide to leave my country for 6 or 10 years, I still want a say in how it is governed... because when I return, I will have to live with the decisions (good and bad) that were made in my absence.
My temporary absence does not delete my right as a citizen to have input into how my country is run.
What is so hard about that simple concept for people to understand?

Your second sentence is the point
You did not have your right as a citizen "deleted"
Once you return, establish residency, you are allowed to vote

Why do you think you can have a say while overseas (or for that matter have any clue about what current issues are)

 

[SkyRider]

Why do you think you can have a say while overseas (or for that matter have any clue about what current issues are)

Agree. Wouldn't want someone living in Egypt, even if he is part Egyptian and part Canadian, decide who should be Prime Minister where I live.

 

[basketcase]

What way?

Here's what I found on the elections page.
http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=reg/etr&document=index&lang=e

 

[destillat]

Agree. Wouldn't want someone living in Egypt, even if he is part Egyptian and part Canadian, decide who should be Prime Minister where I live.

You do realize that expats that decide to exercise their voting right are way more in tune with Canadian current affairs than the regular Joe Schmoe who lives here, right?

 

[red]

Another grade A moron
History lesson for you:
The "right to vote" never existed before 1982
So by your logic of a vet who lived in Canada for 65 years and fought in any war then left Canada would never have had that right

Have I called you names? Can you be civil?

The right to vote never existed before 1982? How did I vote before then? Or other Canadian citizens?