Getting out the foreign vote
They say diversity is our strength, but you wouldn’t know it from looking at Toronto city council — a mere 6.8 per cent of our elected politicians are visible minorities (others often say 9 per cent, which includes Denzil Minnan-Wong, who, though his father is Chinese, could fool most of us on the “visible†front), compared to 45 per cent of Toronto’s total population. Take a look at gender and it doesn’t get much better: a measly 21 per cent of Toronto’s new city council are women, a plunge from 34 per cent the term before.
So how do we change the face of our municipal government to reflect the variety of people who live here? A good place to start would be to give everyone who lives here the right to vote.
Though their lives are affected by the decisions made at City Hall just as much as anyone else, approximately 263,000 people of voting age who live in Toronto can’t vote because they’re not Canadian citizens. Giving non-citizens voting rights is not a radical idea — it’s already happening in 26 other countries and Mayor David Miller advocated for extending voting rights during his election campaign last year. His main competitors, Jane Pitfield and Stephen LeDrew, were quick to agree.) Unfortunately, the power to make this change lies with the provincial government and an antiquated premier who told reporters last fall that “voting is a right that comes with citizenship.â€
Add this to the growing list of Toronto concerns to turn into election issues this fall. That’s what participants in a panel discussion at City Hall on voting rights and civic participation agreed to do March 21. Held to commemorate the International Day for the Elimination of Racism and Discrimination, a panel representing a bunch of worthy organizations said it’s time to rally support to pressure the provincial government to extend voting rights to landed immigrants.
But simply giving non-citizens the right to vote may do little to help make city hall more representative. While far too many people don’t have the right to vote, a greater number of people do have this right but don’t exercise it — voter turnout in Toronto’s last municipal election was around 40 per cent. City council looks more like the Toronto Maple Leafs than a model UN, in part, because many new citizens and visible minorities aren’t voting. According to a recent study, wards with the highest voter turnout rates also have the highest income level and the lowest number of immigrants.
Mohamed Boudjenane of the Canadian Arab Federation argued the problem runs deep. “It’s difficult to ask someone who’s fighting every day to put food on the table to engage politicians,†he said in reference to statistics that show newcomers, a growing number of whom are visible minorities, tend to suffer chronic low income. “We can not talking about political inclusion without talking about social and economic exclusion.â€
As Canada’s population growth will soon depend on immigration rather than birth rate, all levels of government have their work cut out for them.
Visit Eye Weekly’s City Hall Blog to read regular updates and reports on municipal politics from Spacing’s Managing Editor Dale Duncan and Eye Weekly’s City Editor Edward Keenan.
34 comments
Hey, what a great idea! Let’s give away the rights of citizenship to non-citizens! After all, diversity is super-duper keen! Maybe we could even give free airfare to anyone who wants to come here and vote and work and have babies so we can get more diverse even faster. And why don’t we just stop having kids of our own altogether so we can totally replace ourselves as soon as possible?
I suspect nobody would argue if you wanted to stop having kids.
Nice one Julie. I would say the biggest determinant of voting is property ownership. They are the ones who consistently turn up at the polls.
I also understand the concern about the homogeneous ‘look’ of council – but politics should be about ideas – not appearances.
Politicians never represent the current face of the population. It is usually the second generation that is willing to fully participate. If you look at the large waves of immigration you will see 20 years later the impact the 2nd generation will have on every aspect of our nation’s culture.
A lot of our immigration is from nations where political issues have brought them strife (one of the reasons they’re here in the first place). Politics is a dirty word in many parts of the world.
These are not excuses for the pale complexion of council and our public servants, but it explains some reasons why new arrivals stay away from voting and entering into public life.
Now, I think its a no-brainer to grant voting rights in municipal elections to landed-immigrants who’ve lived here for a certzin period of time (5 years?).
Personal attacks are cheap, Julie.
If you want to give away your rights of citizenship that’s up to you but there’s no need to stoop to insults.
Mobius> Julie’s comment wasn’t cheap, and better, it was sort of funny and well timed. Canada’s 30 year old policy — experiment even — in multiculturalism is open for debate for sure, but your comments were extraordinarily hyperbolic. A Canadianized Lou Dobbs style rant about immigration without Dobbs’ token gestures towards some kind of rational discussion.
Talk about this issue, disagree with ideas people have about what it means to be a participating Canadian, but don’t be a dick about it.
I’m not sure how in extending rights to somebody else I’m giving away *my* rights. Seems paranoid.
And it brings up a discussion of what is civic citizenship. I love Canada, and I am a Canadian — but sometimes I feel a lot more affinity towards “Toronto” than to “Canada.” It’s not a case of Torontocentricness — but rather, Toronto seems to represent and embodies the values I believe in more than Canada does, sometimes. Are the rules of being a Torontonian the same as being a Canadian — I’m not sure. In terms of contributions to this city, I’ve only been here for 7 years, and I have full municipal civic rights. Some “new canadians” have been here longer, contributed more than me, been “Torontonian” longer than me, but don’t have the rights I have. I’m not sure if that’s fair.
Municipal citizenship and national citizenship might be different things. This could be a very new discussion. And in my view, the local is always a more interesting place to think about.
Well I disagree. People who immigrate to this country are very fortunate. In my view, they should be falling over backwards to integrate into our society and become citizens as soon as possible. They should not have the right to vote – at any level – until they have made the effort to become Canadian citizens.
I understand that many of today’s immigrants are very poor and are struggling to make ends meet, but the European immigrants of the 50s, 60s and 70s had similar challenges. My parents came here in the early 70s and had a rough first 10 years, but they would always tell me to be proud to be Canadian and followed that up by becoming citizens.
I’m glad this decision rests with the province, and I hope they don’t reverse their position. We give a lot to immigrants and refugees in this country(safety, freedom, opportunity). Asking them to become citizens to enjoy certain privileges such as voting shouldn’t even be debated. If you want that right, make the effort to become a citizen and show your commitment to this country.
It was cheap, Shawn, and now you’re sinking to the same level with foul-mouthed name-calling and attacks on my “style” rather than substance. This only underlines the weakness of your stance. It does seem like a nerve has been struck.
If someone cannot be bothered to go write an easy citizenship test and take an oath why should they have the right to vote? Why should they have any of the rights others have by birth or by their own efforts?
Quebecers, being ahead of the curve as they ususally are, are waking up to this masochistic folly of over-accomodation.
Ieon suggests that immigrants should have to wait 5 years to vote. This is a of immigrants – nearly half the population. If we were to apply the rule to students – who can show up at university in September and vote there without having any knowledge or information about their ridings, why not people who have actually been paying taxes and contributing to the country and city’s wealth.
Incidentally – the homeless – who own no property, except in a collective sense – can vote if they are citizens.
Not only should all residents of the City be granted the franchise, so too should the age be lowered to 16 or so. If we can build a culture of civics all the way through the schools, we might have some different participation rates at election time.
p.s. the headline about “foreign” vote is mis-leading. We’re actually talking about “residents” – aren’t we.
Both Leo and Mobius seem to be responding based on their own personal prejudice rather than from a rational and logical view of the world. They remind me of the anti-abolitionists and the anti-suffragists, many of whom argued that women and black people should neither vote nor own property.
It’s over – there is no rational argument as to why people who pay likely half the taxes in this city should be prevented from making decisions about who represents them in making decisions about how those taxes are spent. Suggesting that they shouldn’t is a form of “theft”.
“Theft” would be if the non-citizens could not avail themselves of city services yet were forced to pay taxes. This is clearly not the case. Welfare, public housing, education, medicare and all the rest are given to non-citizens.
But wasn’t this supposed to be about non-citizens voting in municipal elections? It wasn’t me who went off on these tangents about immigration, multi-culturalism and so on. Yet those with opposing views can only name-call and presumptuously ascribe prejudices which have not been expressed by me.
Getting your citizenship isn’t too difficult. But if some would rather give the rights of citizenship away why should anyone bother to become Canadian at all? And what value will our citizenship have?
Oh, and Grace? You don’t decide when it’s over.
What does this even have to do with citizenship? This is an effort to give people a say in the municipal structures that affect their lives daily. I’m amazed that would even be controversial.
And anyway, my “citizenship” means very little if the democracy on which it is ostensibly based is illusory. And it is illusory if a sizeable proportion of the population don’t get to be a part of it.
Grind your axe somewhere else, Mobius. The screeching is really distracting. Or, alternately, feel free to avoid any good or service, municipal or otherwise, which relies on “non-citizens” to happen. I think you’ll find yourself very alone and very hungry very quickly.
Your unkind advice, along with all the other sneering name-calling, personal attacks and mischaracterizations, is not welcome, Smitty. It only reveals the weakness of your position.
Citizenship/municipal voting is the topic. If you can’t tolerate dissenting viewpoints maybe you are the one who should go elsewhere. The screeching you hear is the brakes being slammed on a really bad idea.
If your citizenship means “very little” to you, you shouldn’t be concerned. And that “sizeable portion” of the population can quite easily acquire the right to participate as millions have done in the past.
If we’re to get beyond the knee-jerk slogans of the Mobiuses and Julies, maybe it would be helpful to flesh things out more.
The European Union extends municipal voting to nationals of one EU country residing in another EU country (full guidelines here).
That’s not too different from what we have in Canada, with regard to residents of different provinces. I imagine that’s what Grace is referring to with regard to students — we don’t, as far as I know, have special rules allowing students from Turkey or Trinidad or Tunisia to enrol at the U of T and vote promptly in municipal elections Students from other provinces or territories, on the other hand, can. As in the EU, in Canada that goes to the issue of mobility.
On the other hand, what Miller and Pitfield and LeDrew apparently had in mind goes much further. So the two questions I have for Dale are:
1) You say 26 countries have already implemented something like this. Which are they — and what can we learn from them?
2) Presumably Miller and Pitfield and LeDrew had people in mind who had established some kind of residency in Toronto, rather than bussing and flying in tourists to vote. What criteria, then? Is it a matter of having been resident in Toronto for 12 months? Would this work sort of like Quebec’s residency criteria for domestic student fees, which involve having been present in Quebec, and in the labour market for 12 months, without having been a full-time student — and, presumably, for electoral purposes being an immediate family member of anyone who met such a modified Quebec Tuition criterion?
In other words, just what are we talking about here?
The funny thing is Mobius hasn’t ever presented a reason why its a “bad idea”, just he/she doesn’t like it, but claims everyone who disagrees with him/her has a weakness in their argument.
We’re all for dissenting views, but you have to back it up.
Just to make sure, this is really the A-game for the belief that noncitizens shouldn’t vote? I mean, we’re not being jerked around here? We truly are faced with the ne plus ultra of argument and proof?
No wonder Conrad Black left us.
At least the sticks and stones have stopped. It was getting tedious. And, Matthew, you shouldn’t expect me to engage such nonsense. It’s surprising to find such a low level of “debate” on this excellent site.
Disparishun, the EU is quite a different matter. If you want to make a North American Union where we’d all have rights in the various countries it would be an interesting discussion. But even current EU citizens do not have voting rights in each other’s countries. And what slogans are you talking about? Okay here’s one for free then – You all seem like you drank the Kool-aid, or you’d be at the head of the line. Not really a slogan but close.
What else do you all want to give away to non-citizens? Provincial voting rights? Federal? Why are most of you in such a rush to give away something so precious? Wake up! You are held in contempt by many of those you pander to.
As mentioned earlier, Québec is ahead of the game on this and they have had a sudden upturn in their birthrate recently.
Mobius, you are right that the EU is a different matter than what the mayoral candidates proposed. As I said, it’s akin to interprovincial mobility.
You are also right that they don’t have voting rights in each other’s supramunicipal — for instance, national — elections. As I said, it’s restricted to municipal elections.
I suspect one way to sharpen your criticism might be to read more carefully the arguments you purport to criticise.
Mobius, there are some good arguments made above as to why long-term non-citizen residents domiciled in a city, like Toronto, should be able to vote in the municipal elections of that city.
You raise slippery-slope and other straw-man arguments, such as the idea that granting municipal voting rights must surely mean granting other rights, too. But there is no evidence for such an assertion — that’s why slippery-slope arguments are usually fallacious.
What if you tried to stick to the question at hand, Mobius? Good arguments have been marshalled for the idea at hand. If you wish to be convincing, I suggest you move beyond irrelevancies like kool-aid ad-hominems and slippery slopes and why-bother-when-citizenship-is-so-easy-to-get points which beg the question. What good arguments do you see against allowing such a plan, Mobius?
Grace (and others),
I am indeed thinking about this rationally. Tell me, why would someone who immigrated here and has lived here for years (or even decades) choose not to become a citizen? What possible rational explanation is there for that? I can think of a few, but will not resort to name-calling as others here have on this thread. Suffice it to say that these people demonstrate a lack of commitment or appreciation to the country that welcomed them with open arms, whether that is their intention or not.
Another problem with many of the ‘pro’ arguments here is that they conveniently separate Canada from Toronto. However, it’s not the City of Toronto that welcomes these new immigrants every year, it’s CANADA. True, many choose to live in our city, but we should not create a system that allows them to become fully engaged at the municipal level without providing equal rights at both the provincial and federal levels. We need people to feel connected not only to Toronto, but to Ontario and to Canada as well. Immigrants should make the effort to become citizens and show their commitment to the country (not city) that gave them the opportunity for a better life.
As for our mainly white city council, I am both amazed and annoyed at the fact that so many groups of people can be painted with the ‘white brush’ in the argument that there aren’t enough immigrant minorities represented. Italians are white, but they immigrated here too. Same with the Portuguese, Greeks, Spaniards, Poles, etc. Back in the 50’s and 60’s, these European immigrants were nowhere to be found in politics. However, the next generations (their kids and grandkids), most definately are. The Italians provide us with a good example: there are SEVEN Italian-Canadians our our current council, all of them second or third generation Canadians. To pass them off as simlpy ‘white’ is misleading in an argument calling for more immigrant participation on our council.
Toronto was mainly white until about 30 years ago, not just because of the wasp’s that were already here, but because the vast majority of our immigrants were white Europeans. I have no doubt that in another 20 or 30 years, we’ll start seeing the children of today’s immigrants on our city council, and it will be a lot less ‘white’ than it is today.
Disparishun, it is NOT akin to interprovincial mobility. Citizens of other provinces are Canadians in case you didn’t know.
Call it a slippery slope if you like. Would you have a non-citizen as a city councillor? mayor? MPP? Premier? PM?
The premise seems to be that attaining civic voting rights is somehow too difficult at present so the bar must be lowered. That begs the question – do you believe the current crop of non-citizen residents are somehow inferior? Are they unable to follow the same path to citizenship and it’s rights and responsibilities that previous generations took?
A friend who recently got her citizenship said the test was a breeze. So where’s the problem? If people don’t want to make the effort – that’s up to them.
So then, when Disparishun asks whether you plan to ever move beyond begging the question and asserting that the ease of obtaining citizenship makes it a moot question the answer would be no? And the answer to when you would start explaining how giving noncitizen residents the municipal franchise would be harmful is never?
You really are not covering yourself in glory here.
God, this thread is depressing! The issue is an important one, and I’m not sure what I personally think about it; Shawn, Leo, and Diparishun have all made good points and raised interesting questions. But then the debate keeps coming back to the same asinine mudslinging. Seriously, what is wrong with you people?
Anti, if you want to answer my questions you might get answers to yours. A lot of folks here seem to fancy themselves self-appointed schoolmarms – trying to tell me when “it’s over”, where to go, how to frame my posts.
It’s a good thing voters did not subscribe to this view that the complexion of city hall is somehow unacceptable (didn’t one of the last mayoral candidates try to make some hay out of that?) or David Miller wouldn’t be mayor now.
This proposal is pure PC lunacy.
Mobius, you explain patiently that interprovincial voting is not akin to EU municipal voting because Canadians are citizens of the same country. Uh, yes; I think you’re confusing “akin” to “identical”. Like Canada, the EU is a single labour market: free movement exists for citizens of member states. No, Canada is not a European Union. Indeed, no situation is identical to that of the EU save the EU; no situation is identical to that of Canada; etc. To me it sounds like you’re nitpicking. I have no doubt that you believe your point to be an important one. In any case, it sounds like we understand one another.
You ask whether I would have a non-citizen as a city councillor, mayor, MPP, Premier, or Prime Minister. I’m afraid you’re onto a new topic whose relevance is not obvious to me — this particular topic is about long-term non-citizen residents’ ability to vote. Extending that particular right does not require extending any of the other rights you mention. If your argument is that they are inextricably bound I’m afraid that, should you wish to be convincing, the burden falls to you to demonstrate why that is so. You have not; nor is it obvious why it should be so. The one simply does not imply any of the others.
Finally — and this really seems to be the heart of your objection, once the “PC lunacy” and other insults and ad hominems are stripped away — you explain that at the heart of your objection is the belief that (1) the premise seems to be that attaining civic voting rights is difficult, and that (2) that premise is incorrect.
All evidence seems to point to the correctness of the premise you attack as false, though. Consider, for instance, the number of people who try and gain admission to Canada through the refugee category — many more, most agree, than would do so were economic migrants able to gain access through the immigrant category. Consider newspaper stories last year-ish — if you are interested, I am sure you will look it up — which, prompted by stories of a labour shortage of construction workers on one hand, and people having moved here from Portugal to work as construction labourers but who were being deported for lack of citizenship despite their desire to stay here to work in that capacity, on the other hand, called for revisions to the points system. And so forth.
Now, it may be that you believe those who do not have very easy access to instant citizenship should not be here. That would be a more principled reason as to why you think they should not have access to municipal voting, despite the advantages to such a scheme (affording people a say, and increasing their involvement, in the local communities in which they live).
To assert that those who do not have very access to instant citizenship are not here — that is, do not exist — is, on the other hand, a demonstrable fallacy. You imply that that, along with the slippery-slope theory, is the core to your disagreement. Can it really be, though?
(Sorry for all the typos and skipped words in the above — I typed fast.
“This particular topic is about long-term non-citizen residents’ ability to vote” referred, of course, to the abiltiy to vote in local elections, and not any other kind of election.
“the belief that (1) the premise seems to be that attaining civic voting rights is difficult” should have read “the belief that (1) attaining civic voting rights is difficult”.
And others. I think the gist is clear, though.)
Disparishun, before Mobius come barging back in, I’d like to respond to your argument. I think you draw the wrong conclusions from your own premises. If there are, as you say, large numbers of people living in Canada’s cities who can’t get citizenship even though they’re contributing to our economy and society (e.g., the Portuguese construction workers, some refugee claimants, etc.), then shouldn’t we fix the system so they can get citizenship? If the immigration system is broken, shouldn’t we be putting pressure on the federal government to fix it? It’s their jurisdiction. Fixing our immigration and citizenship laws is something I wholeheartedly support, but I dont see why we should divorce voting rights from citizenship. Nothing in your argument points to that conclusion.
Barge?!? Moi???
Dis, “ad hominem” means: to the man, i.e. a personal attack. How is it you conclude that my calling this PROPOSAL lunacy is an attack on a person? As for the rest of that bowl of spaghetti you just dumped on this thread – well, it’s just too dreary and convoluted to even contemplate.
Now if I were to call you “too clever by half” that might be construed, by very sensitive souls, to be an ad hominem. Education standards these days must be as undemanding as this proposal.
Anywaaay, nothing would make me happier than to have the entire immigration system overhauled. If that is where the problem lies, that is where it should be addressed (as James sez).
To start, 1)abolish Mulroney’s “entrepreneur class” which mainly attracts skeezy, greedy types who only want a Richmond Hill McMansion with a triple car garage facing the street. 2)stop creaming the crop of the third world – we need labourers here too not just doctors and computer engineers. And we did alright with the poor and wretched of the earth we took in in the past few hundred years.
*barging out*
“Anti, if you want to answer my questions you might get answers to yours.”
But see, here’s the thing: I was on your side at the start of the thread. Utterly. And you’ve been very convincing in one particular way: you’ve shown me that I was wrong. It isn’t harmful to extend the municipal franchise, because if it was you’d have been able to explain the harm of it.
Now, you’ve been able to call people PC lunatics, and you’ve been able to sneeringly hint that people are so stupid they can’t tell the difference between provinces and countries, and you’ve been able to stay on your precious high horse, but you haven’t been able to put forth even the most basic answer to the question what’d it hurt?
By now, I have to believe that the reason you don’t answer that question is that you don’t have any answer to it at all. You’re able to whine that they all are brutalizin’ you, but you aren’t able to offer even one argument for your position. And that just tells me that you got nothin’, and you don’t even have the integrity to admit that you got nothin’.
I woulda had your back four days ago, because I believed every single thing you were arguing. Too bad you did such a good job convincing me that I was full of shit.
James, immigration reform is fine — I doubt many would argue against such a thing — and immigration reform would certainly go some distance to alleviate the problem. But there are two problems with relying on immigration reform to entirely or even substantially alleviate the problem.
First, perfect immigration reform just doesn’t exist. We are always going to have people kicking around as the residue of a system that isn’t one size fits all. The idea that anyone who wants to become a Canadian and can pass a test can, poof, become a Canadian is very unlikely to take place, and will certainly never take place anytime soon.
If it does then, sure, conditions would have changed dramatically, and my thinking on the whole matter would change accordingly.
But, as I say, it’s long-term improbable and short-term impossible. In the meantime, the issue remains. We want long-term residents of particular communities to be involved with the governance of those communities. Indeed, to the extent one thinks democracy works, that’s one of its tenets. Because the governance of local communities is most involved with delivery of local services, and governs uniquely those communities and no other, that’s where it makes sense to have long-term non-citizen residents involved.
Second, perfect immigration reform wouldn’t solve the problem even if it could exist. The international market for labour does not map perfectly to lifetime residency plans. People come here to work for a few years, then leave. They’re not here to become citizens. They’re not here to be involved in the large political issues of the day. Nor do they need to be. But some involvement in how local services are delivered and other local governance issues would still make sense for such people — as long as they sought such involvement, of course; there is no issue here of forced voting!
I will, of course, leave Mobius and his bowls of spaghetti and his “ad hominem? moi? I confine my insults to attacks on your words! noone would construe them as attacks on you!” to the dung heap he came from. Oh, sorry, to the dung heap his words came from. Which, in his world, apparently subtracts things from the realm of insult.
Mobius: Well, I suppose technically I was the one who was barging in on your debate. But dude, you’re, like, barging in on civilisation. Anyway, when I suggested that we “fix” our immigration system, I was thinking along somewhat different lines than you.
Disparishun: I think we’re actually on almost the same page here. I can certainly see the logic of your argument, especially your point about the nomadic international labour market. I just worry that the whole thing will backfire, that by making it easier to vote in local elections we might actually discourage some immigrants from applying for citizenship. That is, they might think, “What’s the point? I can already vote in local elections, the ones that effect my day-to-day life most directly. And I feel more of an attachment to Toronto than I do to some abstraction called ‘Canada.’ So why should I apply for citizenship?” I think that would be an unfortunate situation for our country. But maybe that wouldn’t happen at all. I’m not sure. I’m still undecided on this issue.
>Now, you’ve been able to call people PC lunatics
*sigh*
Where? Quote me, Dis.
If you cannot will you apologize for this misrepresentation? Somehow, your descent into obscenities makes this seem unlikely.
Btw, has anyone asked these resident non-citizens what (if anything) it is they see as the problem?
Oh, and James – it’s not my debate, or anyone else’s. Barge as you see fit!
>Now, you’ve been able to call people PC lunatics
*sigh*
Where? Quote me, Dis.
“This proposal is pure PC lunacy.
Comment by mobius  April 3, 2007 @ 9:11 am”
Don’t worry, I don’t expect you to apologize for refusing to own your own words.