It's time to afford non-citizens some voting rights in Canada

@Unionist - thank you for that link.  I have had some communication with the I Vote Toronto people and a few academics who have supported this notion, but I am looking to connect more widely.  People can feel free to contact me at right2vote@redcedarlaw.com if they want to chat or have some feedback.

As far as I know, there has never been a Charter challenge on this before.  While the declaration I am seeking will only apply to Vancouver proper, I am hopeful that a win will encourage governments to re-examine their own statutes (in greater BC, the eligibility requirements are the same as for Vancouver, but under a different statute), or empower individuals to bring their own claims if the government won't take steps.  On the slim chance that this case heads to the Supreme Court of Canada, I think every province will be paying attention.

I would have no problem with changing the municipal franchise to one based on residency requirements.  I would think a minimum of three years of BC residency for non-citizens would be fair and if after that the residency requirements for any given municipality are met then those people should have a vote.

I do not think that property owners who are not citizens should be given a vote. In municipal elections one person could legally vote in every municipality in the province if one owned land in everyone. In the Lower Mainland there are many land owners with the right to vote in more than one municipality. Currently if I am not mistaken the Act requires citizenship as a precondition to anyone voting.

So Scott what does your Charter challenge propose as proper residency requirements?  Currently there is a 6 months residency requirement in BC for Canadian citizens to vote but only a 1 month requirement for moving in to a municipality if one meets the other two requirements. 

You may SAY you 'only want one vote' dude, but if we allow those who are not even CITIZENS to vote here then we are in fact giving some an extra voice.  Since were already overly influejced by opur more populous neighbour then this could only make things worse.  In ract any judge who thinks this could be remotely constituional in ANY nation-state should be summarly tossed out on his or her ass.   I am open to ways to expedite our immigration process, but this aint the way to go about irt.

If theres no constituional right to a vote municipally then that kind of undermines your own case too.  But of course municipalties are part of our democratic govcernence therefore they have to fall under the same basic rules as other levels of govrnment in a democracy.   I repeat, giving 'non-citizens' a vote here is unfair to others.   Not a right that American authorities are likley to give us (not that it would be a wise decision for us even then) in return.   Whether you can or do vote in other jurisdictions is secondary (which you can by most countries laws, as offshore citizens) to the fact you aren't yet a citizen yourself, are not bound by the same obligations as other taxpayers and therefore should not be given the same rights and privileges.  At least not regarding the democratic franchise.  Certain legal protections must of course be upheld for everyone.   Allowing this on any level could set a very dangerous precedence for others.

Scotbern, i have a few honest questions, honest, because I don't know the answers. Are non citizens covered my provincial health insurance? Are they subject to jury duty? Probably others as well, I had never wondered about it until you started the thread.

@Glenl - yes, anyone who is a resident in BC has to be covered under provincial health care (even on a student visa), but you have to pay the monthly fee as well.  I didn't know about the jury duty question (as a lawyer, I can't serve on one citizen or not), so I looked it up.  It seems that only citizens are called as jurors, as jurors are selected from voter registration lists.

In case you missed it...

in Switzerland, non-citizens can vote after certain residency requirements are met, in local elections ...

as for Fidel, I have also long concluded that he has never visited Puerto Rico, whose net emigration in recent decades has ceased owing to increasing incomes on the island;

so even as a slur , it rings false...

@scottbern

Thanks, and welcome to Canada, albeit belatedly.

Ok,  Nationalism is a dangerous thing Glenl but a little bit is necessary, especially when dealing with nationalists from other countries  Canada could use more of it now IMO, though maybe we could use the word patriotism instead -patriotism in the more positive sense.  NOt a popular term anymore outside the far right but one which should be reclaimed on the left.

I'm not against nationalism or patriotism. I find it difficult taking pride in something that's an accident of birth. I am lucky to be Canadian but I didn't do anything to deserve it. I believe being human is more important than being Canadian. My comment at the end of my post was admittedly gratuitous. Sorry if it was a distraction to the thread topic.

Nor should they.  If a few other jurisdictions decide to allow it thats their problem, but a handful of exceptions don't make it right IMO, in either sense of the word.

Actually there are, but many ways to play them.  And many ways to game them as well.   Living in a democracy means always being vigilant.   IMO, not allowing people who have the right to vote in other countries to vote in ours as WELL should be one, even if a few others don't see it that way.  However you spin it its allowing some people more rights than others.  Rights I don't have.  If you want to vote on how your taxes paid here are allocated then you can always aply for citizenship.  Conversely, if you don't like how things are done here you have other options as well.

You make a good looking argument, and I of course was simplifying, but your apparent sense of entitlement is getting me a little irritated now.  So you have to pay for somethings here that yopu may not approve of?  Well so do we all, even if we have a vote. Incuding foreign residents in the US.  If you don't like it you still have options, including some I may not have.  True that citizens have few statutory obligations to the state anymore(as it should be) beyond obeying the law and paying taxes but I do believe we still have certain obligations others don't.  We don't have a draft, good example, which is also good policy IMO, but if we Were attacked for example, its always possible the draft could be returned.  I'm too old to be called but I have family who might not be. We also have jury duty, as mentioned, and judging by your following post I suspect alot of CAnadins may indeed pay more in taxes than you do, though I doubt you'd admit it and I have no way of proving it.   Taxation has become very secretive up here among the wealthy.    Meanwhile though you get most of the basic services we do, even if you think its unfair you shouldn't be able to get preferential treatment for public service jobs and face some travel restrictions. I haven't dared cross the border since Bush got in.

Actually voting isn't a privilege but a right -albiet a limited one-- though as a foreign resident I don't know what your constitutional rights are Here exactly, that could be a worth investigating.   One right however is that most of us can only vote for leadres in our own country, fpr a variety of rather obvious reasons -though to digress again I wouldn't be entirely averse to some sort of international bodies becoming more directly democratic either.  Depends on how it was done, but OC it won't be.  

The 'differences' you allude to might prove entirely semantic if you somehow win this challenge.  The fact remains you are demnding extra voting rights in another nation you freely chose to enter, and how narrowly or broadly that could be interpretted if you win could indeed affect other levels of governments.  The sizeable 'allocations' you mentioned for example sound like more than a municipal issue to me, but of course your proprtion of it couldn't be much more than the average Canadians of similar income or networth.  Probably less if you also have property in the States.   

If I sound jingoistic here to others I will add that I'm all for easing unfair restictions on immigration, eve illegal refugees, and allowing non-citizens all the basic legal protections we have.  Unlike many in the States and elsewhere.  I do Not however want US citizens gaining even more influence over us in our own naive country, especially not in our post NAFTA world.  Not even without NAFTA, given the unchangeably skewed demographics between our two nations and the long unbroken history of US meddling in others backyard for noone elses benefit but their own.  Well, those who inherit ninety percent of their wealth and power that is, and claim an increasing amount of ours.  I hope this explains my 'nationalistic' militance on this abit better.

No need to apologise, you asked some good questions.  ANd of course youre right that none of us 'deserve' to be born here with our relative priveleges -just ask our First Nations who are still awaiting Our overdue rent- but I do believe all citizens should pay a fair share for the common good of whatever country they happen to be born into but shouldn't expect extra rights others don't get.    As much as some always do.

Don't forget that this wouldn't only allow Americans to vote, but also plenty of Non-citizens from other countries. When I think of "permanent resident", people from the US are about the last thing that comes to mind, but rather the PRs I know from lots of Asian, European and Latin American countries.

The only way for snowbirds to avoid paying taxes is to satisfy the extremely onerous reqiurements to be determined to no longer "reside" in Canada - including disposal of property.  Maybe those snowbirds you talked to are mere tax evaders, but 99 to 1 they owe Canadian taxes.

My constitutional rights as  permanent resident are almost the same as a citizen.  The Charter applies, for example.  In the case of s.3 of the Charter (voting rights for citizens) - it applies to me, but is irrelevant because it's about voting rights for citizens.

It is incorrect to make a blanket statement that voting is a "right".  In some cases, such as citizen voting in provincial or federal elections, that is true - it *is* a right.  In other cases, such as voting in a municipal election, voting is not a right.

The definition of a "right" in this case is that it is something that is legally guaranteed.  In contrast, a privilege is a legal benefit that is conferred upon someone.

In the case of provincial and federal elections, Canadian citizens have a right to vote that is guaranteed by the Charter s.3.  I do not have a right to vote in a provincial or federal election, BUT - should the government pass a statute that says I could - I might have a privilege to vote in those elections.  In the case of municipal elections, there is no such right - i.e. there is no *guarantee* - to citizens or anyone that they will be allowed to vote in these elections.  Since the power of voting is granted to the people through ordinary statute, the government could take away the vote and replace it with something else (I used the example of random selection of a Mayor from the phone book).  That's the legality of it.  If the province did that, what would be your recourse??  The answer is "nothing".  It would be within their power for them to do that and - as you only have a guaranteed right provincially or federally - you have no recourse to challenge the statute on those grounds (you might have some other grounds though, such as the decision was done arbitrarily, etc.).

@Caissa -

"Municipalities are the responsibility of the provinces under section 92 of the BNA/Constituion Act. I think that in and of itself would lead to voting in municipal elections being limited to Canadian citizens."

As much as I appreciate your "to the point" attempt to dismiss my claim on this ground, you too are legally incorrect. What is the connection between a person having a right to vote in a provincial election and the fact that municipalities are the responsibility of the province? The answer is that there is none. I am not arguing that the province doesn't have the power to make election laws and eligibility restrictions, only that when they do so it has to be done in a non-discrimnatory manner.

Not really.  By having our courts recognise the right of non-citizens to vote in our elections then it nolongers a privilege but a legally recognised right -as I already wrote.  And therefore could be expanded once the precedence is set.   I also said I don't like dual citizenship much -along with alot of other stupid laws already standing -as I also wrote- but it's a minor matter, affecting a tiny percentage of the population and theerby having little vaffect on ourv eolections, not something altering a fundamental pecept of democracy, long recognised everywhere, even where not practiced.  I must say I'm surprised how un-concerned others here are.

I might be reaching here with this, but it might have something to do with the fact that as loyal beneficiaries and subjects of an oppressor nation, being currently under the stewardship of the Harper regime and lest we forget, the Liberals before them; and with another pretender twiddling it's thumbs in the wings for a chance to preside over everything that comes by way of being an oppressor nation, we are hardly in a position to compare ourselves with Puerto Rico.  That's pretty much what comes across in saying 'northern Puerto Rico' or 'bananada' or 'day-o' and other such derivitives.  We're voluntary members of the imperialist's club in good standing.

You're just repeating yourself now.  Tell me, when and where is this case expected to come up exactly, any dates set yet?

Most benefit from trading with corporate America has not come to us by NAFTA. Puerto Rico has not benefited from its servile relationship with Washington, and geographic size has nothing to do with that either. It's about the corruption, kick-back and graft. Gasp! Am I suggesting that certain leaders in Latin America are bought and paid for by marauding trans-national corporations, many of them based in the U.S.? Yes, yes I am. It would be incredibly racist or bigoted, one or the other, to suggest that any ethnic group is immune from being influenced by bribery, kick-back and graft. Puerto Rico probably has the highest child poverty rates in a direct comparison with all of the rest of the union states possessing voting privileges.  Puerto Rico is occupied militarily and by U.S. corporations which bribe their corrupt stooges into being lax on corporate taxation and allowing so much concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny elite few same as here in the ... Northern colony. That's imperialism. Whether Canadians have a nominally higher standard of living than Puerto Ricans on average has more to do with how much natural wealth is looted from Canada long time. We are a subserviant nation of incredible natural wealth and a tiny population by comparison with colonially restrictive immigration policies - our imperial masters don't want us growing too large or rivalling them in very many ways.  We have absentee corporate landlords and banks running the country - Harper is just a figurehead leader. Canada is not so far removed from the way Hong Kong used to be run by an appointed white leader from Britain and a few bankers based out of the Hong Kong jockey club. And we all know how rich everyone was in HK. They were so rich that they didn't need anyone to work in a low wage economy. There was no poverty in HK, or at least, not according to cold war era propagandists at the time. [/off topic rant]

I'm sorry to hear that.  Can't s/he gain citizenship after all this time? 

Re my argument, I don't want to overstate the case, given the potential dangers of national chauvinism, but to me this is fundamental issue of one-vote-per democracy, the powers of which still reside in the old nation-state. (one of the core problems of globalized economies, though a boon to the transnationals)  Even a few percent points shift, a figure ScottB recites, could tip the balance in elections here.

This is shameful. We have more than 200000 agricultural workers from other countries working in Canada at different times of year.

They come from Latin America and do backbreaking work picking produce and other labour-intensive tasks. They take hits on wages for EI premiums and medicare and yet can not access these social programs. Many have worked in Canada the better part of a quarter century and selflessly send hard-earned money home to loved ones not living very well. And yet our corrupt stooges say they aren't entitled to citizenship. They must return to their modern day townships in sunny maico and Central America on a regular basis. And you say they don't deserve a vote in this bloody country? These are people I would not mind at all if they lived beside me in Canada and were allowed to vote. 

I can think of a long list of scum of the earth allowed into Canada during the course of a cold war. And these hard-working honest people are not among those. Of course those other sonsobitches I'm referring to lived very well in Canada and other English speaking countries since 1945 forward. Many of them given top-notch jobs in government and industry in Canada, the USA and Britain. They collected full public and private pensions in their golden years and were even allowed to vote.

I agree, Erik. No human bean is illegal. We should never lower ourselves to aping the imperialist theory of labour markets and all that mumbo jumbo associated with the old ways. Their ways are not our's. Fascists do not actually believe in free labour markets or freedom for the vast majority of humanity. They call it freedom when themselves are free not us working class slobs regardless of what country we were born in. 

Viva la revolucion!

Let's not forget about filthy rich people dodging and refusing to pay their share in support of society which they depended on to make their money.

And there are profitable corporations that legally owe tens of billions of dollars in deferred and unpaid corporate income taxes to our corrupt stooges in Ottawa.  If you did not pay taxes legally owed to the feds, well, you'd be sent to prison for it. Not so with the upper crust creme de la creme of pond scum living off rent and compound interest, and other free lunch schemes so corrosive to civilized society in general. And yet they are treated like first class citizens with full rights plus. They are the ones buying governnments in Ottawa and gaming the system in their favour.

hmmm, I have relatively severe doubts about this. I see it raising the possiblity that the large American contingent here in the oil industry (writing from Calgary, y'all) will have even more influence on the local body politic then they already exert via economic levers (hey, it is Calgary, where would the PCs be without those money donated by the oil industry types, regardless of their citizenship)... even though they have little (if any) commitment to staying in the region -- they are here to make their money and get out. Do I really want to afford them the opportunity to go even further in making this the Dallas of the North? There is also a very large contingent here (at least that I have been exposed to) that emigrated from Europe 40/50 years ago, and have made no effort to actually become Canadian citizens... given the very accomodating fashion in which Canada views dual or multiple- citizenship I have often wondered about this - although. in some instances, they may be from countries that refuse to acknowledge even the possibility of dual citizenship and would strip someone applying for Canadian citizenship of their previous status.

If this had been framed in terms of the process of becoming a citizen taking too long, I would have more sympathy for it. I would also have sympathy for an argument that our immigration process is both too stringent and grossly unfair (nod to Fidel's reference to seasonal agricultural workers and an eye north to the "guest workers" in Fort Mac) -- but I am left wondering, of these percentages that are referred to in the OP, the 13% in Vancouver and the 15% in Toronto... can it be broken down into categories... like what percentage are already in the process of getting citizenship, what percentage have consciously decided NOT to apply for citizenship, and what percentage are somehow being barred from applying for citizenship and if so, why?

I did.

Actually I was aiming for consistency F55.  I'll take clever though just because I'm hardly ever.  But then citizens Fidel and Eric went off all half-cocked about the shamefulness of considering it undesirable to add more legitimacy to processes which only serve to perpetuate the very same circumstances they're against.  Not very clever if you ask me.

We'll have to disgaree on this one. Since municipalities are the creation of provinces and since only citizens can vote in provincial elections, I highly doubt that any province or a judge will extend the municipal franchise to non-citizens. I might be deeply surprised but I doubt I will. YMMV.

So altogether, which basic rights are you in favour of throwing out with the bathwater? Do you have a list, or is universal suffrage your only beef? What about one Canadian making equal to one vote? Is that not worth a hey you old white men in the halls of power, give us our damn votes?

Turn on a news channel. Those people out in the streets are demanding our corrupt stooges respect and uphold noble ideas, like liberty, freedom, social justice and democracy. And they are demanding these things on behalf of all of us.

The noble struggle for democracy continues with or without us, SJ. I'm in. I would stand in line for this.

The difficulty I'm having is in locating anything noble about standing in line before the nobility, making demands that are laughed at by their media court jesters, and where the presenters of the demands are subsequently beaten down by their paramilitary services.  There's nothing noble about poverty, about injustice, about oppression or about any struggle which seeks to crawl out from under these devices by way of petition to the ones inflicting all of it.  An animal that finally turns on its cruel master is more noble than one that just sits there and whines for the cruelty to stop, but which never does.  It just becomes an object of pity, not admiration.  Lieutenant-General 'Hugo Sperrle' Bouchard will receive a Meritorious Service Award for the Libyan campaign, and you'll continue to vote for the ones who placed their mark upon the record in support of his actions.  I don't believe you have any idea as to what you're actually standing in line for.

hhmm.   The constitutional right to actually vote out bad politicians and their parties shouldn't be confused with the corruption of the present political process.   Otherwise we end up throwing the baby out with the bath water.

My earlier point to you was rather simpler though, whether we approve or not, our elected authorities have the authority to pass laws and decide how they are enforced, which affect us all.  Dropping out is not an option.

I think that to be able to vote you should be a citizen of the Country you are attempting to vote in. Imagine this, people brought over by a company to work here (from another country) and said people are not citizens but are able to vote they can change the results and send an MP who kissed up to the corporation with vested interests to Ottawa. If this MP is part of the governing party thats even worse because then they have even more pull and could possibly chage things to support the corporation that bought their seat and NOT their constituents. 

Never happen. It would be comprable to the former South African apartheid government's feeble attempt to grant voting rights for black South Africans in the 1950s. I suspect our own anti-democratic forces would place a two-thirds majority threshold House vote as a barrier between change and their grip on power.

the charter is for citizens only, the right to for is a privilege afforded to citizens only and rightly so. if a premanent resident wants to vote then become a citizen and add their voice to this country.

Me too. And bagkitty has the same concern, expressed in earlier posts.

Citizenship is relatively easy to acquire in Canada, with a short residency requirement. The OP is a knowlegeable and thoughtful guy, but in most cases I would be concerned that if folks didn't live here for at least 3 years, they wouldn't have the background to make an informed choice.

Just to review:

This is a pretty low bar. Granted, it's more than those of us who were born here have to do, but it's less than many countries demand. And many immigrants have the added advantage of having another country to go to if things don't work out here. My father is a citizen in the country of his birth as well as Canada, with all the benefits of two countries to call home; he can travel there without hassle, work, or buy property if he likes.

And if somebody with more than 3 years' residency can't be bothered applying for citizenship, are they going to be bothered to vote? According to Wiki, countries that enfranchise non-citizens see a low voter turnout in that group.