Is Harper Destroying Democracy?

[westwoody]

Most Canadians living outside of Canada for extended periods are not paying taxes in Canada or very limited. Since they are not making use of the in-country infrastructure this makes sense.

True I didn't pay taxes while in Afghanistan.

Great way to beat the system for those of us who don't have KPMG accounts.

 

[clu]

would not advocate overhauling the whole electoral process just to accommodate those Canadians who live in another country and don't pay taxes here....

there is more to being a canadian than just having a passport

There's more to being Canadian than paying taxes and owning property. Should the homeless not get a vote?

But to address your "overhaul" objection, you aren't disqualified on these grounds anyway. You can still vote without property or taxes so long as your absence is less than five years. So the only "overhaul" is removing the five year limit. Hardly radical.

And just because you aren't here doesn't mean you don't care about the welfare of your family. You may be sending money back to the country even if it's not in the form of taxes. (And you would not be taxed perhaps simply because of tax treaties that Canada agreed to.)

 

[summerbreeze]

no doubt many issues here

if someone was paying taxes and had a physical address in country such as owning property here, and were an expat living in another country, then

I would agree that they should have an ability to vote. this would also be consistent with a number of other western nations

if they did not have a Canadian address, which riding would they be allowed to vote in is one issue but of course the main issue is the courts have ruled that the government has the right under our constitution and electoral statutes to deny expats the ability to vote

in a free country of course you are entitled to your own opinion but we tend in a democracy to follow the will of the majority and respect the legal system

although not perfect, it does work

 

[hornygandalf]

If you know someone in the 18 to 34 year old age group, why not give them a ride to the poll after dinner? They may not thank you on October 19 as they miss their rerun of Gilligan's Island, but they'll thank you for the next four years.

My students get bonus points for voting, with evidence being a selfie at the polling station.
Those not eligible have an alternative so they aren't disadvantaged.

And don't wait until after dinner... get them to the polls during the day. And there are advance voting options if you aren't able to make it on the day.

 

[hornygandalf]

You guys think Harper has a monopoly on many of the things you describe.
The Selinger NDP government here in MB is waaaaaaaaaay worse.
They even do things that the most staunch NDP'er cannot support.
Just saying for all you people who are drinking Mulcair's kool-aid.

Cheers

Revolution and total overthrow of the current political system is unlikely. And a shift to the Green Party is also less than likely (May has stated she would much rather be in opposition and holding the government's feet to the fire than be in a coalition), so a vote for Mulcair or Trudeau is a step away from the current regime. Both are problematic, but on the face of it appear less problematic than the current incumbent. We may yet be proved wrong. However, I don't see Mulcair as being as left-wing as many portray him. The Liberals appear to be more left than the NDP on some issues.

 

[clu]

if they did not have a Canadian address, which riding would they be allowed to vote in is one issue but of course the main issue is the courts have ruled that the government has the right under our constitution and electoral statutes to deny expats the ability to vote

in a free country of course you are entitled to your own opinion but we tend in a democracy to follow the will of the majority and respect the legal system

although not perfect, it does work

Ok you seem to be missing that the "which riding" thing is a non issue. There is a process for this. It's not restricted because of practical obstacles. They added an artificial five year cutoff.

The five year rule was struck down and was reinstated. It's in flux and hardly a resolved issue. Yes we live in a democracy but I contend you cannot prove the five year rule is the will of the majority and while everyone is "entitled" to an opinion it doesn't preclude others challenging it.

Edit to add: p.s. since you are so focused on taxes, I would ask you why the cutoff should be five years when the audit for back taxes remains a CRA option for seven years?

 

[summerbreeze]

no doubt many constitutional experts here or self appointed experts, suggest for those so passionate about these issues that you should take some action on it rather than rant on a board like this and derail threads

back to the original post re Harper

True Harper's lust for power has him taking advantage of his position of power. Suspect his own party and public sentiment will catch up with him.

Surprised the media has not come out with a more aggressively stance against his tactics

 

[clu]

It's all part of the same conversation. Even the most armchair of critics can still do something about it... (a) Vote and (b) spread the word on the issues so more people are encouraged to vote too. Those of us who would like to see the troubling trend reversed are sensitive to voter suppression in all its forms. When there's a change to the voting criteria, one has to ask how it benefits the encumbants. Nothing is more a direct attack on democracy than inhibiting a citizen's right to vote. So this is extremely on-topic.

 

[summerbreeze]

Personally, I think there are better things to take issue with in terms of government.

1 million expats, 6,000 voted last election, denied or allowed to vote would be a low priority issue compared to things like the new prostitution legislation which is probably not even constitutional according to many of the constitutional lawyers in Canada. Most municipalities won't even enforce it.

Not that voting rights aren't a principled issue, just higher priorities for government to spend their time on.

 

[overdone]

Actually not all Canadians get to vote because Harper took that right away if you have lived outside of Canada for more than 5 years; some democracy.

Nope, I didn't miss anything. It's just my personal opinion that if you are a Canadian Citizen you should have a right to vote in your own country.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/im-canadian-and-i-have-a-right-to-vote/article25731634/

MULRONEY passed the law in 1993, so yes you did miss something

the truth

Harper didn't take the right away, they appealed a judge's decision on it and it was overruled by a higher court

so it is still the law, maybe Donald can spend some of his american money on an appeal to the Supreme Court

didn't see the crook Chretien or his bumbling sidekick Martin repeal it either

Maybe that guy with the French citizenship will win and repeal it :fear:

 

[sdw]

True I didn't pay taxes while in Afghanistan.

Great way to beat the system for those of us who don't have KPMG accounts.

And it was Prime Minister Martin that gave Canadian Soldiers and RCMP Officers posted outside Canada in a "Hot" Zone that deduction.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/news/art...eak-to-military-and-police-personnel/hnocfnlx

Prime Minister Harper has probably repealed that legislation because everyone knows that Soldiers and Police are tax cheats.

 

[sdw]

MULRONEY passed the law in 1993, so yes you did miss something

the truth

Harper didn't take the right away, they appealed a judges decision on it and it was overruled by a higher court

so it is still the law, maybe Donald can spend some of his american money on an appeal to the Supreme Court

didn't see the crook Chretien or his bumbling sidekick Martin repeal it either

Maybe that guy with the French citizenship will win and repeal it :fear:

Expanding on what Overdone says:

Bill C 114 (1993) Jean Chretien, a Liberal, was the Prime Minister. It was the third attempt (1974, 1983, 1993 by the Liberals to limit what political parties could spend during an election. Pierre Elliot Trudeau's government had introduced Bill C 169 (1983) which had been ruled invalid by the Supreme Court of Canada. The limitation on voting rights for non-resident citizens in 1993 was actually a relaxation of the existing voting rules.

Division 3, which includes clauses 220 to 230, applies to voters, other than Canadian Forces voters, who reside temporarily outside Canada. Since 1993, Canadian citizens resident outside Canada have been permitted to vote in federal elections, provided that they have been absent for five consecutive years or less and plan to return to Canada; previously, only certain non-resident citizens, such as Armed Forces personnel and civil servants posted abroad, were permitted to vote.

The law that is in effect on Election Expenses is Bill C 24 (2003) which was passed by the Liberal Government of Paul Martin. That was put in place after Stephen Harper vs Canada was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Stephen Harper, then president of the National Citizens Coalition (he became Prime Minister in 2006), launched a constitutional challenge in June 2000 to Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta in Edmonton. The court held that sections 350 and 351 of the Canada Elections Act were unconstitutional. The Alberta Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 decision, ruled on December 16, 2002 that all provisions on third party activities, except for section 358, violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Paul Martin Government took their appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada who ruled:

The majority was written by Justice Bastarache with Justice Iacobucci, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish concurring.

The court found that, though the spending limits infringe upon section 2b of the Charter, the law is reasonable and is justified in light of section 1. The majority concluded that the objective of the spending limits is electoral fairness. The law has an effect in creating "a level playing field for those who wish to engage in the electoral discourse, enabling voters to be better informed". In addition, section 3 of the Charter is not infringed because the right of meaningful participation in electoral process includes the right to participate in an informed manner. Without spending limits, individuals or groups can dominate the discussion and prevent opposing views from being heard.

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=his&document=chap4&lang=e
http://www.theinterim.com/issues/you-were-asking-47/

It's rather interesting to see Justin Trudeau being passionately against a law that his father first introduced.

 

[apl16]

You forget that we have rule of law and a free press.

If any leader would be foolish enough to head toward a dictatorial form of government, his or her own party would toss them out.

Lol.for those that can afford it! Gotta pay to have legal rights and to have a voice

 

[Evangeline Grace]

MULRONEY passed the law in 1993, so yes you did miss something

the truth

Harper didn't take the right away, they appealed a judges decision on it and it was overruled by a higher court

so it is still the law

Thank you for the history lesson overdone. I know it doesn't matter who is in power, we always find something wrong with the politicians. I would just like to see us all have the right to vote, and for those of us who have that right, let's get out and vote. I for one would like to see some change.

 

[6741xxx]

Thank you for the history lesson overdone. I know it doesn't matter who is in power, we always find something wrong with the politicians. I would just like to see us all have the right to vote, and for those of us who have that right, let's get out and vote. I for one would like to see some change.

I am also all for change but I can't imagine that Trudeau, May or Mulcair would improve the situation.

 

[Bridge]

But two or three of them could work together in a coalition. They have worked really well in the past … Lester Pearson springs to mind.

 

[MissingOne]

But two or three of them could work together in a coalition. They have worked really well in the past … Lester Pearson springs to mind.

Ummm... I don't recall Pearson governing with a coalition. He did govern with a minority.

 

[clu]

I am also all for change but I can't imagine that Trudeau, May or Mulcair would improve the situation.

Mulcair has been campaigning on a platform of repealing C-51, instituting a Science Officer (to undo the damage from muzzled scientists who can watchdog and comment on government policies that can harm our future), and instituting proportional representation so the government actually reflects the spread of voters rather than a small subset. Just undoing some of the damage Harper has done would be an improvement. Trudeau has made some similar promises but their stance on C-51 (siding with the Conservatives' fear mongering) leaves me intending to vote NDP for the first time.

 

[westwoody]

Trudeau's support for C51 was a tactical mistake.
He was afraid of alienating potential supporters by not supporting it. But he misjudged how unpopular it was and lost more than he gained.
He could have voted against it on principle, knowing it would pass anyway. That way he could have appealed to the small C conservatives and not alienated the more liberal Liberal/NDP constituents.

 

[clu]

Trudeau's support for C51 was a tactical mistake.
He was afraid of alienating potential supporters by not supporting it. But he misjudged how unpopular it was and lost more than he gained.
He could have voted against it on principle, knowing it would pass anyway. That way he could have appealed to the small C conservatives and not alienated the more liberal Liberal/NDP constituents.

Definitely a tactical mistake yes. But then Joyce Murray doubled down on it.

The other thing that got my attention with the NDP was that they were wiling to consider a coalition for the good of the country, the Liberals were not, even though they had roughly the same chances of success on their own at the time.