No, damnit, Non-Residents Canadians shouldn’t get to vote in Canadian Elections

I read this piece in the Globe by Semra Sevi this morning making the case for why Canadian citizens who reside outside of Canada for more than 5-years should be entitled to vote in Federal elections.  This is response to the federal government’s appeal of a recent Ontario Superior Court decision in Frank et al. v. AG Canada striking down provisions of the Elections Act which precluded Canadian citizens living outside of Canada for more than 5-years from voting in federal elections.  Both the policy and legal arguments for allowing such citizens to vote are misplaced and ignore the local nature of Canadian democracy. 

The policy argument, at least  as made by Ms. Sevi, appears to be… well… it’s not clear.  At best it seems to be that either (i) they have a right to do so (which may or may not be the case, but which I’ll come back to) or (ii) we should treat expatriate Canadians as an asset, and extending the right to vote to such Canadians somehow does that.  I’ll deal with the first point below, but let’s consider the second point.

First, there’s no doubt that expatriate Canadians are a potential asset to Canada.  So what?  So are teenagers, but we don’t let them vote either. They’re an asset whether or not they vote in Canadian elections.  Extending or denying them the right to vote doesn’t change that.

Moreover, the policy counter-arguments are strong.  A core tenet of liberal democracies is that citizens are both (i) subject to the laws that govern them, and (ii) entitled to take part in enacting those laws.  This goes to the core of “responsible government”.  While  (ii) ensures that governments are responsible to the people they govern, (i) ensures that the people are responsible for the governments that they elect, and have to bear the consequences of their decisions.

Of course, that doesn’t happen when non-resident citizens get to vote.  They get to participate in the Canadian political process, but bear few (if any) of the consequences of the decisions they make.  This is a point that proponents of allowing non-resident citizens vote and the Court in Frank gloss over. In Frank, Justice Penny dismissed this on the theory that:

“non-residents may well be subject to Canadian law. Many of Canada’s laws have extraterritorial application. Non-residents, leaving aside extradition, may not be subject to enforcement by Canadian authorities if they do not live here but that does not mean they are “not subject to Canadian law.”

This is, of course, an absurd statement.  First, very few of Canada’s law have extra-territorial application.  Outside of a very narrow handful of laws which apply despite the absence of any Canadian nexus, mostly for crimes which are universally abhorred and which are included only as  backstop to make sure that someone can prosecture perpetrators of such crimes no matter where they’re comitted (think war crimes laws, sex tourism laws, etc. – believe it or not, the Criminal Code of Canada has provisions governing certain crimes committed on the International Space Station, see section 7(2.3)).  However, the vast majority of Canadian laws have no application outside of Canada.    Second, to the extent they do apply outside of Canada, they apply equally to non-citizens.  Surely the point of responsible government is that people who get to vote in elections get to do so because they have more at stake in the outcome of those elections than EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD.  People residing in Canada have considerably more at stake than those residing outside of Canada over long periods of time.

To be fair, both Justice Penny and Ms. Sevi do make the point that other countries, such as France, Italy Portugal and the United States do have liberal provisions permitting non-resident voting.  Then again, I’m not sure I’d hold any of those countries up as models of good governance (couldn’t Ms. Sevi find four countries that aren’t bankrupt?).

More to the point, the case of the United States is an interesting point as it proves precisely the point I’m making here.  Yes, the US allows its citizens to vote no matter how long they’ve lived outside the country.  It also, uniquely in the civilized world, taxes its citizens regardless of where they live and how long they’ve lived there.  This has been a source of considerable concern and annoyance for duel Canadian-US citizens living in Canada who face hefty fines and penalties for failing to file US tax returns for decades.  From a policy perspective, the US grant of a broad voting right is consistent with their policy (often much lamented by the rest of the world) of applying their law internationally.  For Americans, there’s no taxation without representation, and no representation without taxation.   Ditto for Canada which taxes based on residency.

Moreover, these sorts of international comparisons ignore the nature of Canadian parliamentary democracy.  The Canadian parliamentary system is fundamentally local.  We don’t vote for a president, or vote for a party list of representatives (or for a foreign representative, as in Italy or France).  We vote for a local member of parliament, representing a particular region within Canada.   That goes to the core of Canada’s parliamentary system. In a large country like Canada, this ensures that local interests are adequately represented in Parliament.

Both Ms. Sevi’s article and Justice Penny’s decision ignore or downplay this aspect of Canadian democracy.  In Ms. Sevi’s view, this is irrelevant, because the vote of non-resident voters would be spread out over all Canadian ridings so the “impact would be trivial at best”.  Of course, that’s a flippant dismissal of a real concern.  After all, elections are often decided by small margins – George W. Bush became president of the US by  500-odd votes (or not, depending on your recount) – many of them made by non-resident US citizens (including a friend of mine).  It may be unlikely for one vote to make a critical differences, but it’s not impossible, and the outcome of such votes can hardly be considered to be trivial.

Similarly, Justice Penny’s decision completely fails to grasp this point.  In concluding that the restriction on non-resident voting violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, he fails to adequately appreciate the nature of the “right to vote” in the Canadian constitution.  The Charter, it should be noted, doesn’t define the right to vote, it merely provides that every citizen has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons.  But the nature of that right, subject to very limited exceptions, is (and always has been) the right to elect the member of Parliament in the riding in which you reside.  Justice Penny simply misses this crucial point.  No other concept of the right to vote would have been meaningful to the authors of the Charter.   He’s right that section  3 of the Charter doesn’t impose a residency restriction on the right to vote, precisely because the right itself is the right to vote in the riding in which you reside, and would have been understood as that by the drafters of the Charter.  It would have been redundant to impose a residency restriction on the right to vote in the riding in which you reside.   Seen in that light, the restriction on non-resident voting doesn’t violate the right to vote, it is the right to vote

To be sure, the Canada Election Act has made a number of of exceptions to this rule, for example, for members of the Armed Forces or diplomats, or Canadians residing abroad for less than 5 years.  Yet, in each case, the exception is consistent with the rule.  Members of the Armed Forces or Diplomats are typically posted abroad for relatively short time periods and with the expectations that they will return to Canada.  As a practical matter, they often factually resident in their home ridings (i.e., soldiers don’t generally take their family with them when they go abroad – so extending this rule is often only relevant, for example, to single soldiers who don’t retain a permanent residence in Canada when they go abroad).  Similarly, in the case of Canadians working abroad for less than 5 years, the rule is clearly motivated by a desire not to disenfranchise Canadians who are merely temporarily abroad by ensuring that they must miss (at least) an entire election cycle before they are denied the right to vote.  In each case, the exemptions are provided for people with a close (and recent) connection to a particular riding.  (As an aside, both Ms. Sevi and Justice Penny characterize the 5-year limit as “arbitrary”.  Apparently, they didn’t look to section 4(1) of the Charter which mandates that elections be held (absent special circumstances) every 5 years.  The 5-year limit for non-resident citizens losing the right to vote is logically linked to that requirement).

Indeed, part of the problem is that both Ms. Sevi and Justice Penny overlook that politics is largely a “lived” experience.  Being able to read the Wawa paper in New York or Hong Kong or Toronto doesn’t give rise to the same sense of connectness to local issues as actually living in Wawa. Humans are political creatures, and our lives our bathed in political discussions, whether its complaints about traffic, schools or hospitals, or overheard conversations about taxes on the train, or foreign policy in cafe, the reality is that living in a jurisdiction gives one a greater awareness of the issues of the day than is possible for someone living elsewhere.   For the reason, people who live outside of Wawa, whether they live abroad or elsewhere in Canada, aren’t permitted to choose the MP for Wawa.  It’s profoundly depressing to read a Superior Court Judge suggest that the mere fact that a person can figure out the name of a local candidate and the party he or she represents is sufficient “evidence of the voter’s connection to Canada” to merit permitting them to vote. Boy, talk about devaluing the Canadian political system!

If Ms. Sevi has her way, and if Justice Penny is correct (and I expect his decision will be overturned on appeal), one can readily imagine the absurd results and possible mischief.  People with no connection to Canada, other than a long distant ties due to citizenship (and keep in mind that Canadian citizenship is both readily obtained and practically impossible to lose), will have a say in the choice of our local representatives.  Perhaps more concerning, it could result in Canadian citizens with closer ties to other countries (including countries whose interests are not closely aligned with our own) getting a say in Canadian government – hand’s up everyone who thinks the Tea Party favourite, Ted Cruz,  should get to vote in Canadian elections (to his credit, he has apparently renounced his Canadian citizenship).   Neither of those scenarios result in an alignment of the government with the interests of the governed.

At the end of the day, liberal democracy is about the governed getting to choose their government.  Canadians who choose to live abroad for lengthy periods of time, outside the scope of Canadian laws are, of course, free to do so.  Heck, good for them. But they shouldn’t expect to get to make the laws for those who don’t.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 thought on “No, damnit, Non-Residents Canadians shouldn’t get to vote in Canadian Elections”

  1. My mother and father scrimped and saved in the England of the 1950s to save up to get the hell out of the place. We emigrated to Canada, and it was wonderful for our family of parents and four young brothers. Just as soon as we could (5 years in those days) we became Canadian citizens and on July 1, 1967 I was lucky enough to be on Parliament Hill for the 100th anniversary celebrations. All four of us kids got degrees – engineer, doctor, accountant and lawyer, and contributed to this country.

    As time went on, a lot of refugees and other complainers got into Canada for free, essentially. No hard work, nothing. My father barely made the grade on the scorebook Canada used to apply to immigration seekers in 1958, despite being a doctor (psychiatrist from the RAF, and with a job awaiting), because he was 40 years old. He scored just 58 out of a hundred.

    As the oldest offspring, I had to accompany my father to Canada House in London on his second visit to be medically prodded. Remember it well. Oh yes, in those days, Canada was strict, and probably racist. My father was born in Amritsar, India, offspring of a British Colonial Service couple. Dad always felt they wanted to see if I was white, you know to make sure that he hadn’t married a brown person.

    Since then, we’ve seen people come here, hang around just long enough to perjure themselves by swearing allegiance, and then piss back off home brandishing their Canadian citizenship documents. Remember Harper chartering a ship to bring home thousands of Lebanese “Canadians” back in 2006? Our family was completely disheartened as these fake Canadians got special treatment. And for what? Certainly not for loyalty. Just for their damn convenience when things got a bit dicey.

    http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=8e9c6619-d18e-4b43-9a25-2333c6eebe3b&p=2

    And it’s not just them. Back in the 1990s, I was asked to sign a petition to agree that Snowbirds swanning about in Florida for more than 6 months each year should still get full Canadian status as if they’d lived here all year when it came to taxes and free medical care. The non-residency thing and 183 days per annum. I was so annoyed, I gave an impassioned speech on their duties as Canadian citizens. The meeting was taken aback. These rich people were actually the vanguard of the Reform Party in Fall River NS in those days, which is why I was there. I was asked to become a member – “We need people like you! People who can talk straight and deliver a message.” BTW, these detestable people are at it again in early 2015, moaning and whining about not getting their deductions and how F ing unfair it all is, blah, blah, blah.

    I laughed in their faces. Privileged assholes expecting even more for nothing. So well off they could afford to piss off out of here when it snowed but still expected a free ride paid for by everyone else. Threw their money away in Floridian stores and services. Killed any interest I had in the new “Conservatives”. Idiots. And now in 2015 they get income-splitting. Where’s the fairness in all this bullshit? Nowhere I can see.

    So I agree with your article. Screw the non-resident “Canadians” clamouring away for voting rights. If living here is not important to you, get lost and vote elsewhere. Why should these people get the same privileges as people who live here and contribute every day? And at the other end, rich people, so tightly focussed on examining the insides of their anuses to whom the logic of, you know, actually living here year round and contributing, is apparently something they never considered. Just their precious sense of entitlement was alive and kicking. Made me ill.

    Got zero time for any of them. If you want to get Canadian privileges, live here, period. My family jumped through all the hoops, made it to Canada under the rules and we respected the opportunity we got. All this wishy-washy stuff today cheapens the effort of true immigrants to get here and contribute.

    On another note, none of this Sharia law here, thanks very much. Canada has a past, it has societal norms. If people come here and try to twist things like Human Rights Commissions in order to turn the place into downtown Cairo, I’ll fight it. Ridiculous tribal traditions from the Dark Ages masquerading as practise of religious freedom have no place here in secular Canada. If you didn’t understand how Canada operated as a society before you came here, refused to acknowledge it once you were here, and now want to change things because they don’t match your old habits, tough. Leave.

    Why should we water down this great country for the convenience of short-sighted twits of all stripes?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s