Article content continued

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/national-post-view-save-voting-for-people-living-in-canada

[/np_storybar]

In other words, citizenship doesn’t answer the question, “who lives here?” It answers the question, “who is one of us?”

You could also argue, in theory, that the whole distinction between citizen and non-citizen is wrong. I just haven’t heard any substantial proposal for getting rid of it, and it seems that most people see its value: apart from people who are born and raised here, there is something we want aspirants of citizenship to achieve or become before they get their papers. And whatever that something is, it relates to how we want democracy to function.

Apart from being able to hold a passport, the slate of legal rights afforded to citizens boils down to two basic entitlements: to live in Canada without conditions and to participate democratically. No one would seriously argue that residency rights should expire after a period of time. Again, the point is that once you’re one of us, you’re one of us. If the right to vote in our elections is as fundamental to citizenship as promoted, then it doesn’t make sense for it to expire either. It’s a legal right, not a precondition to a privilege.

But what about provincial elections, which have residency rules? Yes, provinces have residency requirements for voting, but provinces also don’t have the ability to create a legal class of citizenship in the way the feds do. I’m sure that Quebec, for instance, would love to have an equivalent of “Quebec citizenship” so that the absentee votes of expat Québécois could offset the voice of domestic Anglophones. Maybe the other provinces would like this power too, for all I know. But there are no provincial passports, and short of just saying that all Canadian citizens can vote in any provincial election regardless of where they live (which wouldn’t make sense either), provinces have to draw the line somewhere.