A thought experiment: Why Voting Should Become a Privilege in Canada, Tied to Responsibilities

In Canada, voting is often celebrated as a universal right, enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and seen as the bedrock of democracy. However, treating voting as an automatic entitlement has enabled a permanent class of voters to support policies promising “free stuff”—handouts like expanded welfare, debt forgiveness, or subsidies—without contributing to the societal framework that sustains these benefits. This dynamic, worsened by the prior Liberal government’s focus on short-term giveaways over sustainable policies and individual freedoms, has led to a weakened military, a ballooning deficit, runaway inflation, and a housing crisis. Redefining voting as a privilege, earned through responsibilities like participating in a national draft, paying income taxes, and owning property, could foster a more invested electorate and address these issues. In this blog post, I’ll argue why voting should be a privilege tied to these duties, showing how it could reverse the Liberal legacy and restore Canada’s stability.

Historical Context: Voting as a Conditional Privilege

Canada’s history shows voting was once a privilege, not a universal right. Post-Confederation, only male property owners could vote, reflecting the belief that those with a stake in society should shape its laws. Women, Indigenous peoples, and non-propertied men were excluded, often unjustly, but the principle was that voting was tied to contributions like economic investment. The Dominion Elections Act of 1874 limited voting to men over 21 who owned property, and Indigenous peoples faced barriers unless they renounced treaty status.

Suffrage expanded—to women in 1918, Japanese Canadians in 1948, and Indigenous peoples unconditionally in 1960—but these were extensions of a privilege, not affirmations of an inherent right. Today, voting remains conditional: minors under 19, non-citizens, and some prisoners are excluded. Redefining voting as a privilege earned through modern responsibilities could revive this logic, ensuring voters prioritize Canada’s long-term health over short-term handouts that fueled the Liberal government’s problematic policies.

The Risk of Unrestricted Voting: A Class Seeking “Free Stuff”

Allowing anyone to vote, regardless of contribution, has created a permanent class of voters who back policies offering “free stuff” over sustainable governance. This mindset was catered to by the Liberal government (2015–2024), whose policies prioritized voter-pleasing handouts over fiscal discipline or strategic investments. The Fraser Institute notes federal program spending grew 7.3% annually from 2015 to 2022, outpacing inflation, driven by benefits like the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB), $10-a-day childcare, and pharmacare proposals. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation reported federal debt interest costs hit $47.3 billion in 2024, diverting funds from critical needs like defense.

This voting class, defined by entitlement rather than income, empowers parties to promise ever-larger giveaways, risking economic instability. In the 2021 election, the Liberals pledged childcare subsidies and housing grants, while the NDP pushed student debt forgiveness—appealing but often underfunded. The Conservative Party offered tax credits, sidestepping broader reforms. A 2023 Angus Reid poll showed 62% of Canadians support more social spending, but only 41% would pay higher taxes for it. Unrestricted voting sustains this disconnect, as non-contributors can demand benefits without facing trade-offs. Making voting a privilege tied to contributions would ensure voters prioritize stability over giveaways, countering the Liberal legacy of fiscal recklessness.

How a Privilege-Based Voting System Addresses Liberal-Era Issues

Redefining voting as a privilege earned through responsibilities—national draft participation, paying income taxes, and owning property—would directly address the issues left by the Liberal government by fostering an electorate that demands accountability and sustainability. Here’s how each requirement would help:

1. National Draft Participation Fixes a Weak Military
   The Liberal government underfunded the Canadian Armed Forces, leaving it ill-equipped—only 58% of the navy’s ships were operational in 2023, per DND reports, and recruitment lagged with a 16,000-personnel shortfall. A mandatory draft (military or civilian) as a voting prerequisite would prioritize national security, ensuring voters value defense. Those who register or serve (e.g., in the military, coast guard, or emergency response) would gain voting privileges, incentivizing support for robust defense budgets over handouts. This could reverse the Liberals’ neglect, rebuilding a military capable of meeting NATO’s 2% GDP target (Canada spent only 1.38% in 2023).
2. Paying Income Taxes Curbs the Ballooning Deficit
   The Liberal government’s spending drove the federal deficit to $60.7 billion in 2023–24, per Finance Canada, up from $1.8 billion in 2015–16. Requiring voters to have paid income taxes (verified by CRA) ensures they understand the cost of government programs. Voters who contribute financially would be less likely to support unfunded promises like the Liberals’ childcare or dental care plans, which added $20 billion annually to spending without clear revenue streams. A low tax threshold could include modest earners, but the principle would deter votes for “free stuff,” encouraging fiscal discipline to shrink the deficit.
3. Property Ownership Tackles the Housing Crisis
   The Liberal government failed to address housing affordability—CMHC data shows average home prices rose 50% from 2015 to 2022, reaching $816,720 in Toronto. Immigration surges and zoning restrictions, unaddressed by Liberals, fueled demand. Requiring property ownership (or long-term leases) for voting would give privilege to those invested in stable communities, pushing voters to demand policies that increase housing supply, like streamlined permitting or tax incentives for developers. Recognizing renters as stakeholders would broaden access, but the focus would shift from Liberal-era grants (e.g., $40,000 first-time buyer loans) to structural fixes, easing the crisis.
4. Collective Impact Reduces Inflation
   Liberal spending, including $200 billion in COVID-era benefits, contributed to inflation peaking at 8.1% in 2022, per Statistics Canada, eroding purchasing power. A privilege-based electorate—tied to draft, income taxes, and property—would favor policies balancing growth and restraint, avoiding inflationary handouts. Voters with a stake would reject Liberal-style cash transfers (e.g., $500 one-time payments in 2022) that overheat the economy, supporting targeted tax cuts or infrastructure investment instead, stabilizing prices.

Proposed Responsibilities for Voting Privileges

These responsibilities would redefine voting as a privilege, countering the Liberal government’s legacy:

• National Draft: Registering or serving (military or civilian, like healthcare training) shows commitment to Canada’s security, ensuring voters prioritize defense over giveaways.
• Paying Income Taxes: Contributing income taxes (with a low threshold for fairness) ensures voters grasp fiscal realities, deterring support for deficit-driving programs.
• Property Ownership: Owning property or holding stable leases ties voters to community outcomes, encouraging housing solutions over temporary subsidies.

Legal Feasibility: Restricting Voting Without Constitutional Amendment

The Charter’s Section 3 states “every citizen of Canada has the right to vote,” but Canada has restricted other Charter rights, like freedom of expression (Section 2(b)), without amendments, showing voting could be redefined. The Criminal Code’s hate speech laws (Section 319), upheld in R v. Keegstra (1990), limit expression as “reasonable” under Section 1, which allows justified restrictions. Bill C-11 (2023) regulates online content to promote Canadian culture, curbing expressive freedoms without altering the Charter, justified as a public good.

Parliament could amend the Canada Elections Act to require draft registration (tracked nationally), income tax compliance (CRA-verified), and property status (via land or lease records). Courts, as in Frank v. Canada (2019), have upheld voting limits if justified. Framing this as protecting democracy from Liberal-era populism—deficits, inflation, housing woes—could pass Section 1 scrutiny. Safeguards like tax exemptions for low-income earners or civilian service options would ensure fairness.

Philosophical Justification: Voting and Responsibility

Philosophically, voting as a privilege aligns with the social contract, where citizens and the state share obligations. The Liberal government’s focus on handouts—childcare, pharmacare—over freedoms like reducing red tape undermined this. A draft ensures preparedness, income taxes fund shared goods, and property ties voters to outcomes. Exclusions like age or citizenship already show voting’s conditional nature.

Liberal policies catered to non-contributors, fueling moral hazard. Tying voting to responsibilities ensures voters face trade-offs, rejecting unsustainable giveaways for balanced governance.

Practical Benefits: A Responsible Electorate

Redefining voting as a privilege could reverse Liberal-era damage. Elections Canada reported a 67% turnout in 2021, reflecting apathy. Earning the privilege could inspire engagement, encouraging votes for military rebuilding, deficit reduction, housing reforms, and inflation control. A draft fosters unity, while tax and property requirements ensure voters consider national impacts, not just personal gains.

Safeguards—adjusted tax thresholds, rental recognition, civilian service—would prevent elitism, ensuring access while demanding commitment, unlike Liberal policies that ignored accountability.

Addressing Counterarguments

Critics might argue this risks exclusion, recalling Canada’s discriminatory past. But inclusive criteria—small tax contributions, stable leases, civilian service—ensure fairness while demanding investment, unlike Liberal handouts burdening future generations.

Others might claim Section 3’s voting “right” is untouchable. Yet, expression’s restriction without amendment shows voting can be reshaped. Liberal-era issues—weak defense, deficits, inflation, housing—suggest the right fueled irresponsibility; a privilege system could restore balance.

Conclusion: Voting as an Earned Privilege

Canada reels from the Liberal government’s legacy: a weak military, soaring deficits, inflation, and a housing crisis, driven by a voting class chasing “free stuff.” Redefining voting as a privilege earned through a draft, income taxes, and property ownership could foster a responsible electorate, reversing these failures. Just as expression has been limited, voting can be reshaped, ensuring those who vote are invested in Canada’s future.

Imagine voting as a badge of duty—earned through service, contribution, and care. This would rebuild Canada’s strength, ensuring policies prioritize prosperity over populism.