About 1.4 million Canadians of voting age live outside the country. In the last federal election, only 6,000 of them went to the trouble of registering ahead of time and going through the paperwork needed to cast a ballot from abroad.

This is a tiny number – yet it’s enough to agitate the federal government sufficiently to cause it to go to court to uphold a law that limits the right to vote of Canadian citizens who live abroad. Last week it succeeded, convincing the Ontario Court of Appeal to rule in a 2-1 split decision that the law is constitutionally valid.

This was a flawed decision, and should itself be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. Allowing Canadians living outside the country to vote – even if they’ve been away for more than the five-year limit set out in the 1993 law – does no demonstrable harm. If anything, it encourages them to maintain their ties to Canada and expresses a generous, inclusive vision of citizenship. We should be making it easier for more people to vote – not restricting the franchise.

Supporters of the five-year cutoff rule for expats who want to vote argue that Canadians abroad know less about the country, aren’t affected by Canada’s laws, and probably just moved to avoid paying our taxes. None of these are good arguments for depriving citizens of the right to vote – a right now enjoyed even by prisoners convicted of the most heinous crimes. By what strange logic does Paul Bernardo deserve a vote while actor Donald Sutherland (who spoke out passionately this week against the five-year limit) does not?

First, there’s no reason to think Canadians abroad aren’t well informed about election issues. As Justice John Laskin wrote in a persuasive dissent to last week’s appeal court decision, the connection between voting rights and residence arose in an era when travel was difficult and people didn’t move around much. Now, he pointed out, “We live in a global community.”

It’s easy these days for those abroad to stay in touch with the issues. And there’s every reason to think the 6,000 expats who went out of their way to cast a federal ballot in 2011 know at least as much about Canada, and care just as deeply, as the average voter inside the country. If anything, they’re probably more motivated than the rest of us.

Second, Canadians abroad are often affected by Canadian laws and policies. Many have homes and bank accounts in the country. They also have parents, brothers and sisters whose lives are affected by the government we elect. Many intend to return to Canada and care deeply about what kind of country they come back to. Many carry only a Canadian passport.

Those outside the country quite likely care more than others about foreign policy, for example, but so what? Many people inside Canada cast their ballot on some particular issue, such as abortion rights or environmental policy. We don’t ask them to justify the reasons for their vote.

Third, many expats do pay Canadian taxes. They must pay tax on any income they earn inside Canada, and taxes on property they own in the country. Some even choose to file income tax in Canada on their world-wide income. They don’t fit the stereotype of the rich guy fleeing to a tax haven.

But regardless of that, voting rights should not be contingent on paying tax. The time is long past when only property owners were regarded as having a big enough stake in society to deserve the vote. The right to vote isn’t something to be bought and paid for – it’s an inherent right of citizenship. Depriving someone of that right, as Justice Laskin argued, turns them into “second-class citizens and so undermines the values of equality and inclusiveness.”

Some countries – including Britain and Australia – do impose time limits on voting for expats. But many others – such as the United States, France and Italy – do not. Those examples cut both ways, and Canada would do best to align itself with countries that encourage the greatest possible number of people to vote, not those that impose an arbitrary cut-off. Instead, the Harper government has brought in stricter enforcement of the five-year rule.

Rather than attacking a problem that doesn’t exist, the government should be focusing on encouraging more people to vote. It should be widening the franchise, not fighting to restrict it.