scribblet

Just following the letter of the original 1993 law... http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=rep/off/sta_2011&document=p2〈=e Up to and including the 2006 general election, anyone who had returned to Canada, even for a brief visit, was deemed to have "resided" in the country and the five-year clock was reset, allowing them to vote by special ballot. Following the 2006 general election, in the course of reviewing information material for these international electors, Elections Canada changed the information provided to more closely respect the text of the legislation by indicating that the five-year period begins from the date the elector leaves Canada to live abroad and remains in effect until the date the elector returns to Canada to reside. A visit to Canada cannot be considered a resumption of residence in Canada and does not interrupt the five-year period.

Right, and Elections Canada is an independent agency at arm's length from the gov’t which simply enacts legislation, it cannot arbitrarily change the rules unless there is such legislation.

The interesting part about all of this is the way it’s been presented, take for instance this 2012 CBC article which says ‘A law stripping voting rights from more than a million expatriate Canadians who have lived abroad for more than five years should be struck down as unconstitutional” http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/expat-voters-launch-legal-challenge-of-5-year-rule-1.1277292 The comments and other articles attribute all of this to 'Harper stripping away voting rights' when in fact, he had nothing to do with it. It's getting attention now because of the legal challenge which the gov't responded to. It’s a real misnomer because prior to 1993 ex pats couldn’t vote at all (with exceptions such as the military) the legislation was brought about twithin the discussion of charter rights and expanding expand voting rights to certain groups.. This was actually in response to a 1992 court decision where the judge recommended this area be looked at because of Charter Rights. They came up with the 1993 legislation and the 5 years as a compromise. Pierre Kingsley disagrees with it, I'm inclined to think the S.C. will agree with him. IMO One of the reasons given in the recent judgment makes sense. Permitting all non-resident citizens to vote would allow them to participate in making laws that affect Canadian residents on a daily basis, but have little to no practical consequence for their own daily lives. This would erode the social contract and undermine the legitimacy of the laws. Etc

Exactly, I can't imagine Trudeau or Mulcair receiving this (from 2012) http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/stephen-harper-to-receive-world-statesman-award-from-appeal-of-conscience-foundation

What is really interesting in all of this is that prior to 1993 expats with some exceptions e.g. military, could not vote at all. The legislation was enacted after length discussions and reports in order to expand voter's rights. There was a lot of discussion on the issue for years prior but long story = short, they settled on 5 years. There were no legislative changes in 2007 but Elections Canada decided to revisit the issue enforcing/applying the rules. Pierre Kingsley disagreed with the 5 year rule but it didn't change, maybe it should but IMO if you don't own property or pay any taxes in Canada then why should they be able to vote. Having said that, I think the media is extremely remiss in not reporting on the whole issue so framing this is as all Harper's fault.

Chretien was exonerated over Adscam, did he know what was going on his office. Ex pat turnout is very low anyway, it was upheld after being challenged but will be taken to the S.C. It was brought in, 1993 but wasn’t actually enforced until 2007. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/long-term-expats-don-t-have-right-to-vote-in-federal-elections-court-rules-1.3160110 Allowing Canadians who have lived abroad for more than five years to vote in federal elections would be unfair to those who live in Canada, Ontario's top court ruled Monday. Snip; Two Canadians living in the United States — Montreal-born Jamie Duong and Toronto-born Gillian Frank — launched the constitutional challenge, arguing the five-year rule was arbitrary and unreasonable. Both argued they had only left for educational and employment opportunities and still had strong attachments to Canada and a stake in its future.

I doubt the media will ask the hard questions, so far not enough scrutiny of their policies.

I don't see how you can bar any journalist from covering a situation, we should be requiring more journalistic integrity and unbiased objective reporting. Opinions of course are just that and hardly unbiased. The CBC does have a lot to answer for including pimping for more funding but even at that, they have a right to report. What is even more troubling is the Star's publishing of an ex CBC head honcho's opinion that 'Harper is a bigger threat than ISIS' - even for the Star it's jumping the shark. Well, the whole Sharknado.

Define a 'winning strategy' but what you describe is not condoned (to my knowledge) by any candidate I've worked for.

Evidently

Really, I've worked on a lot of campaigns and have never seen or heard of that being done. Maybe it's only Liberal or NDP campaigns that do that?

One of my biggest beefs is that they will not hold a referendum on such a major important issue.

Harper didn't change the rules under that act, the 5 year rule was enacted in 1993.

Good information, thanks... I knew the opposition was being disingenuous at best.

I don't agree with trophy hunting either, but some African countries allow it and are baffled by our concern. http://news.yahoo.com/minnesota-man-killed-lion-keeps-low-profile-amid-055219642.html "It's so cruel, but I don't understand the whole fuss, there are so many pressing issues in Zimbabwe — we have water shortages, no electricity and no jobs — yet people are making noise about a lion?" said Eunice Vhunise, a Harare resident. "I saw Cecil once when I visited the game park. I will probably miss him. But honestly the attention is just too much." http://www.chronicle.co.zw/cecil-whats-going-on/ Why such an outpouring over one lion why are they not concerned about us

Apparently. The NDP even had the nerve to sent out an email saying that the new Conservative Pac was going to spend an obscene amount of money. The kind of money we’ve never seen… really, nothing like the obscene amount of money being spent by Unions/NDP/Liberals on their engage Canada superpac. Hypocrites much.

And of course they are not just representing "concerned citizens, they are a well funded superpac, and the fact they have not registered as third party is fishy. According to that G & M article they have millions in funding from unions. Their facebook page doesn't give any names either so why the secrecy and cover up? D. Akins says that the non-profit. Board is Kathleen Monk and two former Dalton McGuinty ladies: Don Guy, David Gene, funded by “progressive groups". http://blogs.canoe.com/davidakin/politics/engage-canada-vs-evidence-jenni-byrne-and-the-conservatives/ According to the CBC the writ will be dropped this Sunday which means they can't advertise anymore without registering, I wonder if they've spent all of their money yet.

Exactly, and that's the point. (what advertisers doing Harper's bidding?) There was no problem with third party advertising until the Conservativepac, which brought out the big guns. Even Jean P. Kingsley formerly of E.C. got into it suggesting they should all quit, but he wasn't concerned prior to the conservativepac. EngageCanada has not registered as a third party so if the writ is dropped this weekend, they are done.

From the paper, but their site says nothing, zip, and their twitter account (engagecanada) lies saying they are non-partisan. When the ConservativePac came out they listed all their founders up front, the left wing union pacs hide everything.