New Court Ruling: Expats to lose right to vote

[CanadianCountry]

Expats who have stayed out of country for 5 or more years, are going to lose right to vote and will not be allowed to vote in coming federal elections.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/no-voting-rights-for-long-term-canadian-expats-appeal-court-rules/article25590714/?service=mobile

 

[CanadianCountry]

Another Harper tactic to prevent a lost election??

 

[screech339]

Another Harper tactic to prevent a lost election??

Actually it has nothing to do with harper. The 5 year ban was introduced since 1993. So nice try, try again.

We already know you would try to bash Harper every chance you get even if he had nothing to do with it.

 

[scylla]

Actually it has nothing to do with harper. The 5 year ban was introduced since 1993. So nice try, try again.

Yes - this is very old! I didn't realize an appeal had been underway all this time.

 

[dpenabill]

Nonetheless, Harper deserves as much bashing as can be mustered and there is no doubt that the Conservatives are attempting to exploit every possible advantage to skewer the vote come October, from Joe Oliver dodging his responsibility to keep Canadians informed about the true state of the economy to Employment Minister Poilievre's blatant disregard for the rules in wearing a Conservative party logo while announcing the distribution of moneys for the Universal child-care benefit (the timing of this, in sending out checks, and displaying the Conservative logo as if this money came from the Conservatives, is simply sleazy, down-right sleazy).

Regarding the steady drum-beat anti-Trudeau ad about Trudeau not being ready . . . there should be a counter ad about Harper, concluding "he just wasn't ready!" and now all of Canada, not just Alberta, is paying the price for this.

Difference, however, is that Harper never would be ready. Never. Unfortunately, despite three out of five Canadian voters voting against Harper in the last election, he has run a majority government unlike any before. Canada has changed a lot in the last decade, a lot of it due to Harper's Conservative reign, and a lot of this has not been good. Sad actually. Painful to watch even. Not the same country I initially decided to make my home for life.

Ironically, I wonder whether precluding voting by long-term ex-pats will hurt the opposition parties . . . I suspect this might actually hurt the Conservatives more than the other parties.

 

[screech339]

Difference, however, is that Harper never would be ready. Never. Unfortunately, despite three out of five Canadian voters voting against Harper in the last election, he has run a majority government unlike any before.

But it is OKAY for chretien / martin to have majority government for a decade under the same voting turnout as Harper's. Talk about double standard.

 

[dpenabill]

But it is OKAY for chretien / martin to have majority government for a decade under the same voting turnout as Harper's. Talk about double standard.

Not sure why you think that it is OK that the majority of Canadian voters are thwarted by any government. I certainly do not echo that view.

Noting, though, as I recall, Chretien's government had a significantly higher percentage of the total vote.

But mostly emphasizing that the manner in which the ruling government wields its majority looms very, very large, and other than being the only Canadian Prime Minister in history to have been found in contempt of Parliament, this government has repressed debate, radically diminished transparency, rammed through legislation without sufficient consideration or consultation, and adopted more legislation in disregard of the Constitution and Charter, than any before . . . noting in particular the extent to which the Supreme Court of Canada has been compelled by law to restrict this government's overreach is a direct result of this government failing to consider any position other than its own, even the rule of law, even as to the most fundamental law, in its march to do its will, and this alone is such an egregious abuse of power as to warrant, pardon the cliché, throwing the bums out!

In the meantime, I believe that both opposition parties are advocating real electoral reform (versus the sham of reform adopted virtually without debate by the Conservatives in 2014), so that in the future the will of the voters is more appropriately represented in government.

All of which, nonetheless, is beside the point that Harper just was not ready to be Prime Minister . . . and never would be. And the country is paying the price. And overall it is probably time to give someone other than the Liberals the opportunity to make their best shot at getting this great country back on track to be all that it can be.

If, Canada, you care,
then vote for . . .

. . . most people know who by now.

 

[on-hold]

With regards to the original comment . . . restricting expat voting is an example of something that I kind of disagree with, but have come to recognize as the prerogative of a government to control. I originally felt the same way about the various legal issues around hate speech or Holocaust denial -- and then one day I thought to myself "Why do you care if it's illegal to deny the Holocaust? Stop being so American!"

I believe that a generation ago, a Canadian who resided abroad for 5 years would actually lose their citizenship -- compared to that, loss of the right to cast a vote is just a flesh wound.

As for the mechanics of this -- expat voting could actually be meaningful here. With federal elections being determined by riding, and with a minimum of three and sometimes five parties splitting the vote, every vote actually does matter, unlike a Republican's vote in California or a Democrat's vote in Texas. I think it is fair for Canada to require people who vote in a riding to live there too. Technically, riding's are supposed to have similar populations; but I imagine that some ridings would have much larger expat populations than others.

Has Harper changed Canada? Who knows? Much of what he has done that people dislike is a matter of tone -- and there have been past governments that had quite an ugly tone of their own. Much of the rest is a dismissive attitude to anything against power; not consulting if he is not forced to consult, or not accepting that political opponents are also partners in governance. I think that it is very likely that these changes will turn out to be personal quirks of the CPC under Harper, and not permanent alterations to Canadian politics. Actually, it depends a lot more on what the next PM is like -- one person can change something, but it takes their successor to institute the change. I think that Canada has fairly strong norms and institutions that will push it back towards its mean.

 

[SenoritaBella]

I don't think so and my province won't be going for it. Under the Cons, my HST went from 14% to 13%; then we got the NDP and they increased it from 13% to 15% and were kicked out swiftly. Now we have the Liberals and I think one the first things they did was make it so that MLAs have to be in office for just 2 yrs (down from 5 yrs) to get their pension. Then they eliminated the film tax credit which brings revenue to the province, gave Royal Bank millions to open some "business centre" that will supposedly "create jobs". Now why are we paying a bank posting huge quarterly profits to "create jobs"? etc. Need I mention how they handled the health authorities amalgamation? Do you see where I'm going?

About the child care benefit being doled out, I'm not fooled either. What people don't realize is, they have eliminated the "child tax credit" altogether which is higher than what they are giving out now. Plus, this new 'child care benefit' it's taxable. Just enough to wheel you in, but you get to pay the taxes next February (after the election).

If there was another party with a good chance (besides the big 3), I'd look into that. I don't see the difference between the conservatives and Liberals, except on social issues. The NDP, I worry about their promises... where will the money come from to pay for these things except they raise taxes? We all know the middle class is paying through their nose now and many are becoming the 'working poor'. So I don't see a better alternative to the current gov't. I would not count Harper out yet... who would have predicted he would get a majority gov't?

All of which, nonetheless, is beside the point that Harper just was not ready to be Prime Minister . . . and never would be. And the country is paying the price. And overall it is probably time to give someone other than the Liberals the opportunity to make their best shot at getting this great country back on track to be all that it can be.

If, Canada, you care,
then vote for . . .

. . . most people know who by now.

 

[on-hold]

I don't think so and my province won't be going for it. Under the Cons, my HST went from 14% to 13%; then we got the NDP and they increased it from 13% to 15% and were kicked out swiftly. Now we have the Liberals and I think one the first things they did was make it so that MLAs have to be in office for just 2 yrs (down from 5 yrs) to get their pension. Then they eliminated the film tax credit which brings revenue to the province, gave Royal Bank millions to open some "business centre" that will supposedly "create jobs". Now why are we paying a bank posting huge quarterly profits to "create jobs"? etc. Need I mention how they handled the health authorities amalgamation? Do you see where I'm going?

About the child care benefit being doled out, I'm not fooled either. What people don't realize is, they have eliminated the "child tax credit" altogether which is higher than what they are giving out now. Plus, this new 'child care benefit' it's taxable. Just enough to wheel you in, but you get to pay the taxes next February (after the election).

If there was another party with a good chance (besides the big 3), I'd look into that. I don't see the difference between the conservatives and Liberals, except on social issues. The NDP, I worry about their promises... where will the money come from to pay for these things except they raise taxes? We all know the middle class is paying through their nose now and many are becoming the 'working poor'. So I don't see a better alternative to the current gov't. I would not count Harper out yet... who would have predicted he would get a majority gov't?

Looking at the Grits record on fiscal issues, why don't you give them any credit for their long run from the mid-90s, during which they restored Canada's budgetary stability, saved its credit rating, repaid its debt, and put it in the best position of any OECD country to withstand the financial crisis? A large part of Harper's reputation for being the guy who knows whats going on stems from the fact that he was put in an extraordinarily favourable position, in which he didn't have to do anything particularly objectionable. Provincial politics tend to be more feckless on all sides, not just the Libs.

 

[alphazip]

Not the same country I initially decided to make my home for life.

I agree with you, dpenabill, 100%! I moved to Canada from the USA during the Bush years, with the intention of living in a better society. Imagine my disappointment when Harper came to power. As Harper stated in a 1997 speech to American conservatives: "[Y]our country, and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world."

That's scary.

 

[keesio]

Noting, though, as I recall, Chretien's government had a significantly higher percentage of the total vote.

1993 elections - Liberals under Chretien win majority government with 41.24% of the vote
1997 elections - Liberals under Chretien win majority government with 38.46% of the vote
2000 elections - Liberals under Chretien win majority government with 40.85% of the vote

2011 elections - Conservatives under Harper win majority government with 39.62% of the vote

I'd say it is a wash.

 

[SenoritaBella]

I wasn't here so can't give credit for what I don't know. For the issues that matter to me, I don't see a difference between them and the current gov't.

Looking at the Grits record on fiscal issues, why don't you give them any credit for their long run from the mid-90s, during which they restored Canada's budgetary stability, saved its credit rating, repaid its debt, and put it in the best position of any OECD country to withstand the financial crisis? A large part of Harper's reputation for being the guy who knows whats going on stems from the fact that he was put in an extraordinarily favourable position, in which he didn't have to do anything particularly objectionable. Provincial politics tend to be more feckless on all sides, not just the Libs.

 

[keesio]

As for the original issue at hand, if there are Canadian expats who have been filing taxes but lose the right to vote, that stinks ("no taxation without representation" lol). But if they declared themselves a non-resident to CRA so they don't have to file, then I have less sympathy.

On the flip side, as a US citizen also, I'll GLADLY give up my right to vote in the US elections if I can declare myself a non-tax resident of the USA and not have to file my US taxes. But that is just wishful thinking...

 

[asaif]

Does it have to be 5 years of continuous non-residency? What if the expat returns for a short period to Canada (e.g., a one month vacation) in the middle?